Gene-modified cow makes milk rich in protein, study finds
October 2, 2012
Transcows of the future? (Credit: Alex E. Proimos/Flickr)
Scientists have altered the genes of a dairy cow to produce milk that’s rich in a protein used in numerous food products and lacking in a component that causes allergies in humans.
Using a process called RNA-interference that turns certain genes on or off, scientists from New Zealand produced a cow whose milk had increased casein, a protein used to make cheese and other foods, and almost no beta-lactoglobulin, a component in milk whey protein that causes allergies, Bloomberg reports.
The study can be seen as a proof-of-concept that tinkering with nutritional content genetically is possible, said William Hallman, director of the food policy institute at Rutgers University.
Aside from the hypoallergenic qualities, the genetically modified cow’s milk may also be valuable for its higher content of casein. The milk protein is used in a range of food products, including cheese, thickening agents in soups, salad dressings and whipped toppings. It’s also used in adhesives, cosmetics and some pharmaceuticals, Hallman said. “In terms of dairy economics, casein is the most profitable part of the milk,” he said.
Tests now need to be done to see whether removing BLG really does help those with allergies and whether the genetic change harms the animal, according to the paper, written by researchers from New Zealand’s AgResearch, a government-owned research institute, and the University of Waikato, both based in Hamilton, New Zealand.
Curiously, no mention in this Bloomberg article or the PNAS paper of tests to see if it harms people. — Ed.
Comments (13)
by Alex
I also found this interesting:
“But anti-GM lobbyists are alarmed – not least because Daisy was born without a tail, and her creators aren’t sure why. “They’ve proved it in theory, but as I say, at what cost?” says Jon Carapiet, spokesman for GE Free New Zealand. “The animal’s got no tail. What else the genetic engineering and cloning processes have done to it, we don’t know.”
That’s because Daisy was created in a lab, cloned in part using man-made material. It’s far from a natural process, and out of 100 embryos, she was the only survivor.
“The efficiencies are always relatively low,” says Dr Wagner. “A lot of pregnancies are lost in the early stages of gestation.”
“Many animals would have died or suffered severe damage, and they’ve ended up with one calf with no tail, and they got a cup of milk out of it,” says Mr Carapiet.”
Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/GM-cow-low-allergy-milk-but-no-tail/tabid/1160/articleID/271239/Default.aspx#ixzz28BB8bUUy
by Marcos Marin
I better not say much on this, but you can know how retarded an information theorist is by the way he laughs (and physicists too). If you reading this doesn’t comprehend what I mean don’t even bother trying to figure its connection with Kurzweil’s arguments about the brain, though in his LUCKY GUESS case it doesn’t matter much, because other causes save him (basically all the less lucky arguments he cover his bases with), so I won’t bother with him just yet, BUT IN THIS CASE, i.e. genetic engineering, you have NO IDEA how many bumps in the head those idiots can take, Mwahahahaha and many more to come, stay tuned ;-)
by blair
some 2.5 million inmates in america who would make the perfect test group for the new milk. Easiest way to get the answer which we can assume is…. no, why would a little extra protein hurt anyone? Granted I only drink soy and almond milk, making this a bit irrelevant to my intestines.
by Marcos Marin
ahhh you’d be surprised what the right protein at the right place and the right timing can do to a human, boy…
by blair
oh of course in certain areas at certain times,
but ingested into the belly, for breakfaaast?!
by Bruce Bowen
I get annoyed when people speak collectively of GMO as bad or dangerious. That’s like saying “chemicals” are bad or dangerous. Some are and some aren’t. GMOs that increase or decrease a specific nutritional element that is already present should probabaly be categorized as GRAS. GMOs that add a pesticide toxin, such as BT corn, deserve much more scrutiny.
by roy
Do I detect an air of disapproval, considering you seem to think they may be leaving out the human factor?
by Vin
“…[its proof that] .. tinkering with nutritional content genetically is possible ” made me smile. Most of our foodstuff, livestock or other, is the product of genetic tinkering for millennia using the old fashioned methods. Most of these species wouldn’t exist in their present form if it wasn’t for humans.
by Marcos Marin
Oh, the old fallacious argument to get people to acquiesce. What they DON’T tell you is how idiotic it is. It is like saying, ‘hey you are choosing your lifetime partner to procreate with, let’s go all the way and inject your prole with all kinds of “enhancements”‘.
Creating evolutionary pressure is one thing, removing it altogether is the exact opposite, and that argument makes you believe it is the same.
One very obvious of those pressures, which they sweep under the rug is humans are needed to plant or herd those “enhancements”, let’s remove that, for example by creating an ebola virus who spread as easily as the flu. =) that also makes me smile…
Let’s grant its right to exist! It also wouldn’t exist in that form if it wasn’t for all those clever humans, right?
by Marcos Marin
“Curiously, no mention in this Bloomberg article or the PNAS paper of tests to see if it harms people. — Ed.”
That’s because human tests come much later than animal tests and lab tests, such as the allergenic which was mentioned.
by Editor
Right. I should have said, “plans for tests…”
by Marcos Marin
nah… =)
by Aaron
Yet more progress in the exciting field of RNA-interference. Wish there were more market applications but I suppose it’s not too much to wait another five years for something truly significant to the public at large.