Genetically Modified Foods

[Floyd.]

Please inform me and we can start a list if anyone knows of any. This is inspired by the animal testing thread by the way. :ph34r:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I hate to break this to you, but everything is genetically modified, just some things are modified though selective breeding, and others through taking DNA snippits from other things and putting them into the plant/animal.

[BuyOurEverything]

I hate to break this to you, but everything is genetically modified, just some things are modified though selective breeding, and others through taking DNA snippits from other things and putting them into the plant/animal.

Precisely. All the phobia about GMOs is just fear of technology and the unknown. Fact is, genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years through selestive breeding.

[Floyd.]

Not so Greenpeace have a booklet of genetically modified/engineered free foods. I just want to know more. I meant food that's considered to be organic/natural/pesticide free. I just want to know more food that hasn't been "tampered" with, in Australia there is growing support for a ban on imported GE/GM foods and in some states like the one I'm from (tasmania) it's illegal to grow GE food, also I think that soon it will come into practice in Australia that foods have to say on the label wether or not they are GM which will be good.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Genetically engineered food is HEALTHIER then regular food. Some are givin DNA to make then produce certain vitamins and nutrients, and others are made to grow larger in a shorter amount of time, enabling us to feed more people. I say KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK to our scientists.

[Hate Is Art]

yeah I agree, GM foods are healthier and should be utilized to create cheaper food and healthier food.

[BuyOurEverything]

Not so Greenpeace have a booklet of genetically modified/engineered free foods. I just want to know more. I meant food that's considered to be organic/natural/pesticide free.

Now you're changing the issue. I agree that pesticides can be dangerous and I buy organic whenever I can but that has nothing to do with genetic modification.


Genetically engineered food is HEALTHIER then regular food. Some are givin DNA to make then produce certain vitamins and nutrients, and others are made to grow larger in a shorter amount of time, enabling us to feed more people. I say KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK to our scientists.

I agree with you to some extent. They certainly have the potential for that, however, as of now, the only people working on GMOs are huge corporations who really couldn't give a fuck about feeding more people. And it doesn't really matter if the rice you're eating has more vitamins if you still don't have enough to feed your kids. I think people tend to look at GMOs as the 'holy grail' and think that they can end hunger and malnutrition worldwide and that prevents them from seeing the real causes of these things. Genetic modification and research needs to be done by the government with the best interests of the people in mind and not by multi-national corporations like Monsanto.

[pedro san pedro]

Not so Greenpeace have a booklet of genetically modified/engineered free foods. I just want to know more. I meant food that's considered to be organic/natural/pesticide free.

the true food guide - australian version (http://www.truefood.org.au) - tells you which products are organic -and therefore pesticide free.



Genetically engineered food is HEALTHIER then regular food. Some are givin DNA to make then produce certain vitamins and nutrients, and others are made to grow larger in a shorter amount of time, enabling us to feed more people. I say KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK to our scientists

who told you this MM? there are yet to be any studies into the human health effects of consuming ge foods. also, a vast majority of ge crops grown are produced by monsanto - a chemical company. rather than adding vitamins and nutrients, they are produced to be pesticide resistant -which means farmers add a lot more posions to their land and crops. mmmmmnnnnn yummy




in Australia there is growing support for a ban on imported GE/GM foods and in some states like the one I'm from (tasmania) it's illegal to grow GE food, also I think that soon it will come into practice in Australia that foods have to say on the label wether or not they are GM which will be good.

australia already has these labelling laws -unfortunately they contain many exemptions -eg foods sold at point of sale, highly processed foods, animals that have been fed ge crops (animal feed is currently the main use of ge crops worldwide) etc. this means that a large number of products that contain ge material are not labelled.

australia is currently in negotations with the USA for a free trade agreement. a condition of this is likely to be the removal of labelling laws -laws that over 90% of australians want strengthened (taylor nelson sofres, april 2002 poll).

the growing of commercial ge crops, except cotton, has been blocked at state level by all states except queensland. however, the federal government has announced plans for a 10,000 hectare field trial of canola.
a crop this size is not a trial, it is a commercial crop in disguise :ph34r:




Precisely. All the phobia about GMOs is just fear of technology and the unknown. Fact is, genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years through selestive breeding.

sorry, but no. genetic engineering is fundementally different from selective breeding. selective breeding involves crossing members of the same species -eg a red and a white rose- to produce a certian trait -a pink rose.
ge is the crossing of members of 2 different species eg a frog and a potato, scorpian and corn, fish and lettuce, human and cow, bacteria and soy -you get the idea.

people that campaign against ge are not anti science -many are scientists. i suggest you look at organisations such as physicans and scientists for the responsible application of science and technogy (http://www.psrast.org) before you start to slag off people you have never met.
might i also suggest you speak to a few geneticists -most look down upon genetic engineers as being quite simplistic.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 3 2004, 02:47 AM

Not so Greenpeace have a booklet of genetically modified/engineered free foods. I just want to know more. I meant food that's considered to be organic/natural/pesticide free.

the true food guide - australian version (http://www.truefood.org.au) - tells you which products are organic -and therefore pesticide free.



Genetically engineered food is HEALTHIER then regular food. Some are givin DNA to make then produce certain vitamins and nutrients, and others are made to grow larger in a shorter amount of time, enabling us to feed more people. I say KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK to our scientists

who told you this MM? there are yet to be any studies into the human health effects of consuming ge foods. also, a vast majority of ge crops grown are produced by monsanto - a chemical company. rather than adding vitamins and nutrients, they are produced to be pesticide resistant -which means farmers add a lot more posions to their land and crops. mmmmmnnnnn yummy




in Australia there is growing support for a ban on imported GE/GM foods and in some states like the one I'm from (tasmania) it's illegal to grow GE food, also I think that soon it will come into practice in Australia that foods have to say on the label wether or not they are GM which will be good.

australia already has these labelling laws -unfortunately they contain many exemptions -eg foods sold at point of sale, highly processed foods, animals that have been fed ge crops (animal feed is currently the main use of ge crops worldwide) etc. this means that a large number of products that contain ge material are not labelled.

australia is currently in negotations with the USA for a free trade agreement. a condition of this is likely to be the removal of labelling laws -laws that over 90% of australians want strengthened (taylor nelson sofres, april 2002 poll).

the growing of commercial ge crops, except cotton, has been blocked at state level by all states except queensland. however, the federal government has announced plans for a 10,000 hectare field trial of canola.
a crop this size is not a trial, it is a commercial crop in disguise :ph34r:




Precisely. All the phobia about GMOs is just fear of technology and the unknown. Fact is, genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years through selestive breeding.

sorry, but no. genetic engineering is fundementally different from selective breeding. selective breeding involves crossing members of the same species -eg a red and a white rose- to produce a certian trait -a pink rose.
ge is the crossing of members of 2 different species eg a frog and a potato, scorpian and corn, fish and lettuce, human and cow, bacteria and soy -you get the idea.

people that campaign against ge are not anti science -many are scientists. i suggest you look at organisations such as physicans and scientists for the responsible application of science and technogy (http://www.psrast.org) before you start to slag off people you have never met.
might i also suggest you speak to a few geneticists -most look down upon genetic engineers as being quite simplistic.
Ok, well I sure wouldn't be a very happy camper if I bit into an apple and got a mouthful of worms like they did in the old days. As far as food goes, I trust the FDA's decisions on what is healthy and what is not. They aren't afraid to ban things they they feel are a concern to people's health, even if it would cost corporations a great deal of money. So stop worrying.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 05:59 AM
Precisely. All the phobia about GMOs is just fear of technology and the unknown. Fact is, genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years through selestive breeding.
They are based on known threats. GM refers to the manual manipulation of genes. Please start using facts. Read the relivant thread that was already up.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...ST&f=22&t=20102 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=20102)

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 02:00 PM
Genetic modification and research needs to be done by the government with the best interests of the people in mind and not by multi-national corporations like Monsanto. (Emphasis added.)
I have to agree with Comrade 3iVi, as we both have reservations about GMOs for reasons beyond "fear of technology and the unknown" as BOE characterized earlier.

I think BOE is lacking a sufficiently healthy skepticism of GMOs. He is even onto the reason to worry about them, as the quote above shows. Yet, this is tucked away at the end of a long post.

I think the control of GMO research and production by a private, profit-seeking entity is absolutely alarming. A capitalist would sell rope at his own hanging, so the saying goes. I am worried that the pursuit of profit by Monsanto, et al. may be putting a noose around this entire planet's throat.

There have been a few articles on Znet (http://www.zmag.org/), I know, that have documented the failures of various GMOs. It is worth looking through the archives.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Marxist in Nebraska+Feb 3 2004, 01:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Marxist in Nebraska @ Feb 3 2004, 01:06 PM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 02:00 PM
Genetic modification and research needs to be done by the government with the best interests of the people in mind and not by multi-national corporations like Monsanto. (Emphasis added.)
I have to agree with Comrade 3iVi, as we both have reservations about GMOs for reasons beyond "fear of technology and the unknown" as BOE characterized earlier.

I think BOE is lacking a sufficiently healthy skepticism of GMOs. He is even onto the reason to worry about them, as the quote above shows. Yet, this is tucked away at the end of a long post.

I think the control of GMO research and production by a private, profit-seeking entity is absolutely alarming. A capitalist would sell rope at his own hanging, so the saying goes. I am worried that the pursuit of profit by Monsanto, et al. may be putting a noose around this entire planet&#39;s throat.

There have been a few articles on Znet (http://www.zmag.org/), I know, that have documented the failures of various GMOs. It is worth looking through the archives. [/b]
Hey, no science is perfect, and some things might happen that you might rather not. However, science is science, weather done by a university, govt, or a corporation. The only difference is that when something is made by a corporation, you end up paying for it. Of course, we would all rather have people other then corporations discover things, but that doesn&#39;t make those discoveries bad. All such discoveries should be public domain, but even if their discoveries get patented, trying to enforce a copyright over genetic code is utterly unenforcable. Let the work continue&#33;

[Marxist in Nebraska]

MM,

"Imperfection" in science is one thing, but we are talking about something that is potentially harmful becoming dominant in the world. And we do not have a full idea of what we are getting into. Much of the research into these GMOs is done by the company making them... they are not going to admit flaws that will hurt sales. That is the danger in granting secrecy on such matters.

I have no objection to furthering this work. I want to know exactly what the GMO is, and what flaws it has before we start planting them all over the world, where they can potentially contaminate the environment. I want to know any possible risks in these before I start eating them.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

The end results are thoughly tested on animals before the first human even touches it, and the stuff we create is generally less fit to survive in a wild enviroment. Altough a lot of research goes into GMOs, ANYTHING new made has to pass FDA inspection, which include through animal testing. Once in a blue moon something might get past undetected, but I think thats just a chance worth taking. I&#39;ve heard about the corn and the butterflies, but I think that is just the price we pay for healtier food.

[pedro san pedro]

The end results are thoughly tested on animals before the first human even touches it, and the stuff we create is generally less fit to survive in a wild enviroment. Altough a lot of research goes into GMOs, ANYTHING new made has to pass FDA inspection, which include through animal testing.

this is not entirely true -a lot of ge products are not tested at all upon animals before being declared "fit" for human consumption.
a lot of bodies rely upon the notion substainal equlivants -a ge potato looks like a normal potato, smells like a normal potato and even tastes like a normal potato -therefore, it mnust be just as safe as a normal potato, and can be sold.
as i stated earlier, no long term studies have been done into healrth effects upon humans eating ge foods, and due to poor labelling laws, i have no freedom of choice as to whether of not i buy them.

as to continuing research -i&#39;m no luddite.
continue, advance our understanding and science, but do this in laboatory, under secure, controlled conditions. dont plant in the fields, where organisms can escape, because once its out, its out for good.
look at rabbits or cane toads in australia -they are there for good, and an introduced organism will cause unpredictable harm to a natural ecosystem.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:03 PM
The end results are thoughly tested on animals before the first human even touches it, and the stuff we create is generally less fit to survive in a wild enviroment. Altough a lot of research goes into GMOs, ANYTHING new made has to pass FDA inspection, which include through animal testing. Once in a blue moon something might get past undetected, but I think thats just a chance worth taking. I&#39;ve heard about the corn and the butterflies, but I think that is just the price we pay for healtier food.
Have you seen Jurasic Park? "Life finds a way," and it doesn&#39;t have to even live very long to interact with much of the environment, like short-lived bacteria that are needed FOR LIFE ON THIS PLANET. If these great capitalist corporations, looking into the interests of the people, doing work in who knows what country to bypass laws, using animal testing, mess up and miss one of the countless errors that could occur when different organisms interact with this new life-form that has been created, WE ARE ALL FUCKED. There is no telling how much it could unbalance our ecosystems but hey "I think that is just the price we pay for healtier food." Why do you place so much trust in capitalism&#33;?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 4 2004, 01:53 PM
Have you seen Jurasic Park? "Life finds a way," and it doesn&#39;t have to even live very long to interact with much of the environment, like short-lived bacteria that are needed FOR LIFE ON THIS PLANET. If these great capitalist corporations, looking into the interests of the people, doing work in who knows what country to bypass laws, using animal testing, mess up and miss one of the countless errors that could occur when different organisms interact with this new life-form that has been created, WE ARE ALL FUCKED. There is no telling how much it could unbalance our ecosystems but hey "I think that is just the price we pay for healtier food." Why do you place so much trust in capitalism&#33;?
O come on, whats the worst that can happen? Attack of the killer tomatoes? Basing the future of humanity on a few crappy capitalist movies is hardly a sound policy. I don&#39;t trust corporations at all, but I trust science, no matter where it comes from. Although I would much rather have research done in tightly controlled govt labs, but if some corporation comes out with a high yeild strain of a particular plant/animal, then why not take advantage of it? The golden rule of nature is survival of the fittest. The fittest being nature. The stuff scientists create are generally less fit, but more useful to society, therefore the odds that such an organism will go out of control and destroy all of humanity are very low. Modifing the genetic code of organisms is nothing new folks, its been done in nature for billions of years, and done by us for thousands.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

MM,

You have far too much faith in government regulation and inspection of corporate research and development.

And it is not simply a matter of strong strains and weak... it is a matter of genetically modified organisms destroying elements of existing eco-systems moreso than the GMO itself destroying mankind. It is silly to ridicule seriously worried scientists by likening them to B-movies.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:04 PM
O come on, whats the worst that can happen? Attack of the killer tomatoes? Basing the future of humanity on a few crappy capitalist movies is hardly a sound policy. I don&#39;t trust corporations at all, but I trust science, no matter where it comes from. Although I would much rather have research done in tightly controlled govt labs, but if some corporation comes out with a high yeild strain of a particular plant/animal, then why not take advantage of it? The golden rule of nature is survival of the fittest. The fittest being nature. The stuff scientists create are generally less fit, but more useful to society, therefore the odds that such an organism will go out of control and destroy all of humanity are very low. Modifing the genetic code of organisms is nothing new folks, its been done in nature for billions of years, and done by us for thousands.
Whats the worst that can happen? Read the post you quoted. Sorry I used the movie as as an example, I thought you might have understood the idea behind it. Yes, you do trust corporations, to work with the blue prints of life, with their scientist, paid to do as told. "...why not take advantage of it?" READ MY PREVIOUS POST. "The golden rule of nature is survival of the fittest." No, survival of the fittest is the jungle law or maybe you are thinking of natual selection, I hope you can figure out why when designing new organisms we don&#39;t what them to be more "fit" that everything else on the planet.

"The stuff scientists create are generally less fit, but more useful to society, therefore the odds that such an organism will go out of control and destroy all of humanity are very low. "

Are you making this up? Show information about this "stuff,"please. Anywhy, when the research lab makes a public annoncement I&#39;m sure they will say, "...the odds that such an organism will go out of control and destroy all of humanity are very low" Oh, global extiction isn&#39;t very likely...trust us.

"Modifing the genetic code of organisms is nothing new folks, its been done in nature for billions of years, and done by us for thousands."

READ THE THREAD, in nature complicated organisms are modified over a long period of time. In GM, they are combined with completely different organisms. Unless you&#39;ve seen a lot of people breeding corn with butterflies, I&#39;m sure people have been doing that for thousands of years...

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

As far as the fittest goes, its pretty hard to out do billions of years of natual selection. Furthermore, combineing butterfly and corn DNA isnt going to produce a corncob with wings. At best it might produce a strain of corn that produces a particular protein or enzyme that a butterfly might have in its system. It really is rather harmless.

[pedro san pedro]

(book excerpt from The Food Revolution by John Robbins)

“A few years ago, a German biotech company engineered a common soil bacterium, Klebsiella planticola, to help break down wood chips, corn stalks, wastes from lumber businesses and agriculture, and to produce ethanol in the process. It seemed like a great achievement. The
genetically engineered Klebsiella bacterium could help break down rotting organic material and in the process produce a fuel that could be used instead of gasoline, thus lessening the production of greenhouse gases. “It was assumed that the post-process waste could be added to soil as an amendment, like compost. Everybody would win".

With the approval of the EPA, the company field tested the bacterium at Oregon State University. “As far as the intended goals were concerned - eliminating rotting organic waste and producing ethanol – the genetically engineered bacterium was a success. But when a doctoral student named Michael Holmes decided to add the post processed waste to actual living soil, something happened that no one expected. The seeds that were planted in soil mixed with the engineered Klebsiella sprouted, but then every single one of them died.

“ ... The genetically engineered Klebsiella turned out to be highly competitive with native soil micro-organisms... the genetically modified bacteria were able to persist in the soil... “When the data first started coming in,” says Elaine Ingham, the soil pathologist at Oregon State
University who directed Michael Holmes&#39; research on Klebsiella, “the EPA charged that we couldn&#39;t have performed the research correctly.

They went through everything with a fine tooth comb, and they couldn&#39;t find anything wrong with the experimental design - but they tried as hard as they could... If we hadn&#39;t done this research, the Klebsiella would have passed the approval process for commercial release.” Geneticist David Suzuki understands that what took place was truly ominous. "The genetically engineered Klebsiella," he says, "could have ended all plant life on this continent..."

mm,
sorry to quote my self from another topic, but this dont sound to harmless to me.

our natural world is an incredibly complex group of interrelated systems. it is impossible to predict what will occur when one aspect of one of these systems is changed.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:56 PM
Furthermore, combineing butterfly and corn DNA isnt going to produce a corncob with wings. At best it might produce a strain of corn that produces a particular protein or enzyme that a butterfly might have in its system. It really is rather harmless.
Thanks pedro san pedro, I put down a link to your post but I don&#39;t think MM saw it.

HOW do you know this MM? What is the source of your furvent belif in GM usage? Have you read through this thread? Feel free to address ALL of these questions, as replying to half of them doesn&#39;t give you any crediblity.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 5 2004, 01:53 AM

(book excerpt from The Food Revolution by John Robbins)

“A few years ago, a German biotech company engineered a common soil bacterium, Klebsiella planticola, to help break down wood chips, corn stalks, wastes from lumber businesses and agriculture, and to produce ethanol in the process. It seemed like a great achievement. The
genetically engineered Klebsiella bacterium could help break down rotting organic material and in the process produce a fuel that could be used instead of gasoline, thus lessening the production of greenhouse gases. “It was assumed that the post-process waste could be added to soil as an amendment, like compost. Everybody would win".

With the approval of the EPA, the company field tested the bacterium at Oregon State University. “As far as the intended goals were concerned - eliminating rotting organic waste and producing ethanol – the genetically engineered bacterium was a success. But when a doctoral student named Michael Holmes decided to add the post processed waste to actual living soil, something happened that no one expected. The seeds that were planted in soil mixed with the engineered Klebsiella sprouted, but then every single one of them died.

“ ... The genetically engineered Klebsiella turned out to be highly competitive with native soil micro-organisms... the genetically modified bacteria were able to persist in the soil... “When the data first started coming in,” says Elaine Ingham, the soil pathologist at Oregon State
University who directed Michael Holmes&#39; research on Klebsiella, “the EPA charged that we couldn&#39;t have performed the research correctly.

They went through everything with a fine tooth comb, and they couldn&#39;t find anything wrong with the experimental design - but they tried as hard as they could... If we hadn&#39;t done this research, the Klebsiella would have passed the approval process for commercial release.” Geneticist David Suzuki understands that what took place was truly ominous. "The genetically engineered Klebsiella," he says, "could have ended all plant life on this continent..."

mm,
sorry to quote my self from another topic, but this dont sound to harmless to me.

our natural world is an incredibly complex group of interrelated systems. it is impossible to predict what will occur when one aspect of one of these systems is changed.
That sounds like simply a sensational article written to attract attention. ALL life on this earth is competative. Natural selection creates the most deadly, virilent bacteria and animals for us, GMOs cannot accompish that. What GMOs CAN do is make organisms more useful to us. Saying that all life on this continent would end because of this GM bacterium is completely unfounded, and at very least, calls for additional testing.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:30 PM
That sounds like simply a sensational article written to attract attention. ALL life on this earth is competative. Natural selection creates the most deadly, virilent bacteria and animals for us, GMOs cannot accompish that. What GMOs CAN do is make organisms more useful to us. Saying that all life on this continent would end because of this GM bacterium is completely unfounded, and at very least, calls for additional testing.
Okay, don&#39;t even respond to debate...Oh, it&#39;s "sensational," no need to provide ANY information or ANY explainations for your reasoning. Actually, have you ever heard of biological weapons? Often they are modified to make them more deadly. If we didn&#39;t have safeguards for outbreaks, ALL PEOPLE on many continents WOULD BE DEAD but I&#39;m sure you trust the U&#036; government to be responsible with biological contaminants.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Biological weapons contain either the toxens from a bacterium, I.E, botulism, or contain an spore of existing bacterium, I.E. anthrax, use modifies an old strain of a virus such as the influnza and creates a new strain that the population has not yet aquired an immunity to. If we didn&#39;t have safeguards for outbreaks, there would be some serious epidemics perhaps, but people with strong immune systems would survive. It would be a large scale act of natural selection. Though such an incident would be undesirable. However, GMOs aren&#39;t biological weapons. They are trying to increase the yeild to increase their profits. The research isn&#39;t necessarily bad, just the fact that it&#39;s being done by corporations. However, I assure you, you aren&#39;t going to contract the next bubonic plauge from eating a GM tomato. Although I am rather concerned at seeing corporations do this research, I would strongly advice a governement agency to do it.

[pedro san pedro]

mm, sounds like you place a little bit to much faith in our governments ;)

personally i have no problem with research, provided it is contained within labatory -a stance that most scientists agree with.

however, i see no need for the release of gmo&#39;s into the environent. as you stated, the companies pushing these organisms are motivated by profit, and dont bother to take enviromental risks into consideration. these risks are so unpredictable that i am yet to come across a reasonable risk assessment.

contary to popular belief, the corperations are not trying to increase crop yields. infact, the uk soil and health association study of 2001 found that in the usa crop yeilds had actually fallen by around 5%.
monasto is the company pushing this technology, and their main products are weed killers. hence, they produce oraganisms modified to be resistant to chemicals such as round up.

i agree with you that research should be done in the labs, but ask why there is a need to release potentially dangerous organisms into the natural environment??

[hazard]

what is the real point of transgenics? it can&#39;t really be to modify food

the science is taken directly from the idea of HG wells ala the island of doctor monroe. or whatever the fuck his name was.

on that island, through vivisection mind you, this so called doctor ("HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF A DOCTOR?&#33;" cyclops, xmen cartoon series 1) took pieces of different animals and spliced them all together

TRANSGENICS does the same thing but at a cellular, that is devleopmental, level

wouldn&#39;t one think that the REAL reason would be to create like a race of PIG MEN ( "I just sawa pig man... A PIG MAN&#33;" kramer, seinfeld) to one day rule the world?

the TV series DARK ANGEL ("james cameron OWES us" classified, classified) sort of uses this idea and presents it in a realistic sci fi element

to me it seems a waste to splice the genes of a moth with an apple just to increase its shelf life by a couple of weeks when RADIO ACTIVE treatment produces the same results