MMMM Test Tube Chickens

One day, I was walking around the mall with my sister until a wave of hunger came over me. I wanted to go to the next fast food restaurant I saw which happened to be KFC, so I proceeded to walk in. My sister immediately stopped me and told me that they use “Test Tube Chickens” and we should not eat there. Being the younger one, I simply listened to my older, supposedly wiser sister and we ate somewhere else. I honestly had no idea what she was talking about- did they take the egg of a chicken and the sperm of a rooster and implant the embryo in a surrogate chicken? Were KFC chickens tested on with harsh chemicals and then fed to its consumers? Because I liked KFC, I wanted to figure out what she was talking about without asking and looking stupid. So I went online and googled “KFC Test Tube Chickens” and discovered some pretty alarming, disgusting, inhumane stuff.

Here’s the Story:

http://temasekpoly.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/kfc-is-serving-genetically-engineered-chicken/

First of all, this site made it apparent why Kentucky Fried Chicken has changed it name to KFC. Does anybody know why? The reason why they call it KFC now is because they cannot use the word ‘chicken’ anymore. Why? This is because KFC does not use real chickens. They actually use genetically manipulated organisms.

The University of New Hampshire did a study on KFC products to discover that these ‘chickens’ have no beaks, no feathers, and no feet. Their bones are quite small to get more meat out of them and some even have multiple wings. These chickens are called “test-tube chickens” because have tubes running through their bodies to pump blood and nutrients throughout their structure. This is great for KFC because they do not have to pay so much for their production costs. There is no more slaughtering, plucking of the feathers or removal of the beaks and feet.

So did you believe it? I sure did. Some legend huh. There’s nothing like the Frankenstein laboratory scenario. Raising chickens that have been genetically modified so that they are born without beaks, feathers, or feet, or with additional legs is still beyond the reach for modern science for the time being (although selective breeding has been used to enhance some features), nor did the University of New Hampshire perform a “’study on KFC.” KFC buys its food products from the same suppliers as everyone else. They sell the equivalent of 736 million chickens annually and they even take pride in being part of an Animal Welfare program.

But why is this so easy to believe? Artificial Selection is the answer. Artificial selection describes intentional breeding for certain desirable traits, or a combination of desirable traits. Artificial Selection or Selective Breeding, is the process of changing the characteristics of a species by artificial means. This can be done by altering the DNA of the organism or by crossing two members of the same species that both have dominant alleles for a "desirable" characteristic. Because both of these organisms have dominant genes for these desirable characteristics, at least some of their offspring will possess all of these characteristics. Humans have been able to choose favourable traits in almost anything-- their dogs, their crops, and as discovered in the last bioblog, their babies as well. So will test tube chickens be the food we eat in the future?

People already love hot dogs, sausages and other processed meats that are completely unnatural. Many consumers simply prefer not to consider the origin of their meat. “Consumers don't really have a sense of how meat is produced,” says Jason Matheny, lead author of a paper on in vitro meat production in a June 2006 issue of the scientific journal Tissue Engineering. “They see the end product, which often bears no resemblance to the animal. What they care about is how the product tastes and whether it's affordable." With test tube chickens the benefits are plentiful:

• feed more people
• provides cheaper meat
• they are faster growing
• juicier, succulent, more meat
• more jobs for farmers
• more profit overall
• no more bothersome chickens

But at what cost? There are clearly negative aspects in having the chickens of the future in this way:

• killing off an original species
• completely unnatural
• obese people
• inhumane
• abusing animals
• risking epidemics

As you can see, all of the benefits of artificial selection are in favour of human beings—WE get more money, WE get better food, and WE get more food. How selfish can we be? Are we even considering that making a fat chicken with no face and six wings is absurd beyond a reasonable doubt? When God created heaven and earth, he commanded that humans be the stewards of His creation—not make it into crazy mutants. When I look at what has been done to this creation today, I wonder if God is satisfied. We have completely failed at being good stewards by focusing on OUR own needs. We are constantly trying to “improve” what we have because we are never satisfied. For once, can humans just let life play out they way it was intended to and stray away from ridiculous ideas such as artificial selection? My faith in human kind is slowly diminishing.

References
http://temasekpoly.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/kfc-is-serving-genetically-engineered-chicken/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=iga&part=A3902
http://beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_testtube_meat/
http://www.alive.com/5328a16a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=168
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O6-artificialselection.html

Commented on:
Isaac Peiris
Diana Ho

THE QUEST FOR THE PERFECT BABY !

Imagine- you have just gotten married and want to have a baby. You approach a computer device that allows you to choose brunette hair, green eyes, a little button nose, and health codes to prevent potential disease. THIS—this ladies and gentlemen is what the genetic engineering can come to! This can all happen under a program called Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis, or PGD. While this isn’t a reality just yet, Jeffrey Steignburg who’s a physician and in the PGD industry believes that this can occur soon. PGD is a technique used to identify genetic defects in embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) before pregnancy. PGD refers specifically to when one or both genetic parents has a known genetic abnormality and testing is performed on an embryo to see if it also carries a genetic abnormality. PGD testing allows one to see if the child could possibly have diseases which are frequently followed by the difficult decision of keeping the child or eliminating the embryo if they feel that the results are unfavourable. As of right now, one can select from a list of over 4,000 items that are genetic disorders, and screen the embryos for any kind of genetic disease and even select a gender for their child to have. They look at the actual chromosomes which are responsible for causing those diseases. As desirable as it sounds, this whole process is very controversial. Currently, 35 countries have banned PGD because they believe that they should let the medical community interfere in the genetic processes. So do they have a point? Or are they completely wrong?

Well let’s look at the positive aspects of this whole situation. Couples that come in to such a clinic may currently have a child with a disease, or they have a family history of a disease, and they're concerned about passing that on to the next generation. I would certainly go through with this process if I knew I could prevent my child from a lifetime of ridicule, inequality, and disappointment. You go to countries and you'll see babies with easily preventable genetic disorders- the same countries that have basically have banned PGD. But many argue that this is simply unnatural. It is wrong to select the traits of your children, no matter how well your intentions may be. Dr Leon Kass and the President’s Bioethics Council in the United States have argued:

“Human reproduction is a ‘gift’ and that any form of selection or manipulation turns the child into a ‘manufacture’ and thus impairs human flourishing.” (Kass, 1998, 2000, 2002; President’s Bioethics Council, 2002)

When one has a child, they should love them unconditionally, despite all of their flaws. PGD however, allows this to be impossible because one can just eliminate what they don’t like about this unborn child. The deselected embryos are even discarded! Think of all the lives that have been lost because of PGD. This loss of life is completely against my beliefs and I can assure you, more people feel the same as well. In addition, increasing the technology of PGD will lead us into a world in which children are valued more for their genotype than for their inherited characteristics. This will eventually create a world of designer children in which genetic engineering becomes regular. Why would anyone take a chance of having a diseased baby or a baby girl instead of their desired baby boy when they could go to a doctor like Dr. Steignburg and say: “Hey Doc, I don’t want my baby to have any diseases and I want them to have green eyes, brunette hair, a button nose, and it better be a girl. “ This my friends, can be very dangerous.

So do the countries that have banned PGD have a point? You be the judge.

Works Cited

Dayal, Molina B. "Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: eMedicine Obstetrics and Gynecology." EMedicine - Medical Reference. 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2009. .

O'Reily, Bill. "GENETIC ENGINEERING OF BABIES A POSSIBILITY? North America United States from AllBusiness.com." Business Resources, Advice and Forms for Large and Small Businesses. 2 Mar. 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2009. .

"What is PGD." Reproductive Genetics Institute: PGD Experts. Reproductive Genetics Insitute, 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2009. .

Arctic biodiversity in danger!

There are many areas on this earth that are far away from humans. Even in places that are rarely touched by people, however, human beings have had an impact. They create holes in the ozone layer, emit chemicals into the atmosphere, and cause irregular climates. All of these human impacts change ecosystems that are rarely touched, or are never touched at all by people, but the human impact is still there. As corny as it sounds, the Arctic seems timeless in all of its beauty but even if we don't know it, humans have been eating away at it showing that time is not the only thing effecting the Arctic.

The polar ice cap is already shrinking in size. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century. When it does, so will most of the plants and animals that depend on it. Furthermore, once the ice is gone, seawater will be able to flow freely around the North Pole. The reduction of the Arctic ice cap is also accelerating global warming. Snow and ice usually form a protective, cooling layer over the Arctic. When that covering melts, the earth absorbs more sunlight and gets hotter. Almost all climate models predict that global warming will be greater at higher latitudes than it will be at the equator. This means that plants and animals living near the North and South poles will be especially hard hit by the greenhouse effect, creating a negative effect on the Arctic biodiversity. Places like the Arctic tundra for example. South of the Arctic tundra, a vast plain that is frozen and snow-covered for most of the year. For several months each summer, however, the top few inches of the frozen soil melt. Because of global warming, most of the tundra could be gone in less than a hundred years. As global temperatures increase, the frozen soil will gradually thaw. Many people worry that as the tundra thaws, the vast amounts of peat it contains will decompose. As a result, huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane could be released into the atmosphere during the next few decades. Adding more of these heat trapping gases to the air can only make global warming worse. And the latest scientific data confirm the effects of climbing global temperatures. Any change in ocean currents and rising global temperatures could easily change the way in which marine life is disturbed in the Arctic Ocean and the whole world as well.

Regarding global warming, the Arctic ice cap has not been in the public’s eye but recently, the effects have been more noticeable than ever. The new findings are devastating for polar bears, whose dependence on sea ice makes them particularly vulnerable to warming temperatures. A U.S. Geological Survey wildlife research biologist in Alaska, Steven Amstrup, states that “Our results have demonstrated that as the sea ice goes, so goes the polar bear." Not only are polar bears affected, but other marine animals as well. Many walruses and different kinds of seals for example, use the ice as platform for fishing. The ice is also a place where spotted seals and harp seals come to breed and raise their pups. The melting of once-permanent ice is already affecting native people as well. When ice shelves splintered in the arctic, the rare freshwater lake it enclosed, along with its unique ecosystem, drained into the ocean. The marine life are changing their feeding and migration patterns, making it harder for native people to hunt them. Along Arctic coastlines, entire villages will be uprooted because they're in danger of being swamped. Global warming is a threat to the native peoples’ culture and very survival. Melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets in the Arctic also contribute to rising sea levels, threatening low-lying areas around the globe with beach erosion, coastal flooding, and contamination of freshwater supplies. As viewed recently, flooding and typhoons are invading South East Asia and it is almost certain that this will not be the end of the natural disasters. A warmer Arctic will also affect weather patterns and thus food production around the world. Wheat farming, for example, would be profoundly affected by the loss of ice cover in the Arctic. According to a NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies computer model, the weather would be 4 degrees warmer in the North American winters without Arctic ice, which normally creates cold air masses that frequently slide southward into North America. It is not long before all this mystifying marine biodiversity is lost in our natural winter wonderland, food supplies decrease, and natural disasters continue to destroy the planet.

Erle Ellis is a professor of Geography at the University of Maryland and a major researcher in the area of anthropogenic biome mapping. He states that people have formed nature and that societies need to learn how to sustain nature. In his view, humans are an important part of the global ecosystem, and they can work to reshape biodiversity by increasing or decreasing it. In my opinion, Nature is something that is fragile and needs protecting. People must take responsibility for managing global ecosystems and create a world where humans are active, positive managers of nature. Humans can no longer think about nature as something that is far away from people and needing protection. They need to think of nature as something that is everywhere and people are changing it, for better or for worse.

Works Cited

Global Warming. New York: Blackbirch Graphics, 1991. Print.

Global Warming. New York: Chealsea House, 1992. Print.

The Greenhouse effect- Life on a Warmer Planet. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 1990. Print.

Unstoppable Global Warming. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. Print.

Kunzerman, Theo (ed). 2008. Allianz Knowledge. The Earth We Created.

Anthropogenic biome maps. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, 2008. Print.

Blog's I've commented on:
http://a-nisce.blogspot.com/
http://sbi3ublog.blogspot.com/