GM cow: low allergy milk, but no tail

Print

GM cow: low allergy milk, but no tail

3News NZ

The milk comes from a genetically modified cow named Daisy (file pic)

The milk comes from a genetically modified cow named Daisy (file pic)

By Ingrid Hipkiss

New Zealand scientists have created a new kind of milk – one that doesn't trigger allergies.

It comes from a genetically modified cow named Daisy, and her creators are hailing it as a scientific breakthrough. But opponents of GM say it's no more than a macabre experiment.

Scientists at AgResearch tried for six years to create a cow like Daisy. The eureka moment came when they milked her in April.

“We were very excited seeing the result,” says Dr Stefan Wagner.

What scientists wanted was a cow that produced milk that could be drunk by the one in 50 people, mostly infants, who are allergic to milk. Their aim was to reduce a protein, called BLG, that triggered the allergy. What they got was even better.

“We could actually not see any of the protein,” says Dr Wagner.

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.

And while that cup may be full of potential, the scientists are keenly aware that GM is a controversial concept. It will take years, decades even, before the milk is approved for human consumption.

Security around the project is so tight 3 News cameras weren’t allowed in to film Daisy. She'll spend her life contained behind a double perimeter fence, and New Zealand's GM rules mean it's likely her milk will never leave the lab either.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

4/10/2012 1:09:31 p.m.

vicki wrote:

Further, @mike I do agree with reducing housing costs, never said I didn't, poverty is a cross party issue, like it or not, loony left or not. You want to talk about improving this country the answers are complex and require us all to work together. Are you prepared to work with people like me? As for me, I have worked for years with right wing, capitalist people so I have already proven I am more than capable of that.

4/10/2012 12:47:42 p.m.

vicki wrote:

now now @Mike, I have a degree and have worked for years as a professional prior to becoming ill, so watch who you call an idiot. Our minimum wage is too high? really! Wealth is not needed for anything other than selfish people who want to live a better life than everyone else, you wealth arguments have no merit and are completely flawed. I live a sustainable life, I grow a garden, I have chickens, I eat vegetarian lentils and soup daily, so I have one thing to say to you about the idiot comment - pot, kettle, black. Also you are welcome to drink some GMO milk, but it sounds like you might have already been drinking something stronger. Do you live on a minimum wage, have you ever been on a benefit Mike - go on answer that question for once.

4/10/2012 7:43:52 a.m.

Mike wrote:

Take the fish farm in the sounds - greens blocking it.

Take use of plant waste and greens protesting against its recycling as stock food.

Greens dont support farming and sustainability.

I listed my breakfast of 55 cents serve. I listed a lunch actually bigger than my lunch for under $1. Now 2 idiots claimed that because they cant budget/live within a budget/live healthily on a budget - that that was not living in the real world? I would suggest that some get off their lazy backsides, go to a supermarket, buy affordable but cheap food, and live on $1.50 for breakfast and lunch. Its simple enough, and one can do this if one but tries.

The reality is I live in the real world and because I can live healthily on less and without government hand outs, we have idiots with their snouts in the public trough claiming poverty and how hard it is to get a free lunch! Try working for your lunch instead! Our min wage is too high, as explained. So raising the min wage is not a real option and its not affordable, hence Labours devaluation/inflation poicy to reduce real incomes through the back door. I also listed an alternative, which would help real incomes, by reducing housing costs - much caused by Labours RMA.

But wait, the Greens prefer those around the poverty line to starve than to address the housing shortage pushing up house/rental prices.

If disagree with something, discuss it. How will raising min wages not add inflation and cost jobs? How higher wages will grow our exports? Or do what your already doing, ignore discussion and resort to name calling in typically left looney style.

Wealth is needed for social services, as it is the wealth that pays for those services. Remove the wealth, and nobody left to pay for those services. The so-called greedy corporates employ people, and the profits tend to be low percentages on turnover, often around 3%. Take so-called greedy Fonterra - profit around 3%. Fonterra has over 10,000 forgotten little investors.

3/10/2012 11:11:17 p.m.

Save the cows wrote:

I avoided milk as a kid and survived without GM cows, and so have several friends. People can get by without dairy products in my experience. But if you really have to have a cow, dairy tastes better when the cows are treated well.

3/10/2012 10:50:06 p.m.

Better solutions wrote:

Could have spent less money and harmed no animals if they focussed on any number of other solutions. Including refining a process to take BLG out of ordinary cow's milk, or encouraging mothers to use human milk for their babies instead of cows, or by promoting dietary alternatives for adults allergic to milk.

3/10/2012 3:53:04 p.m.

Wiseacre wrote:

@MIKE - Stop talking rubbish. The Greens are not blocking farming and fisheries. They promote *sustainable* farming and fisheries, rather than exploitative & environmentally damaging farming and fishing. Destroy the environment and there will be no more wealth, and the standard of living will plummet for all. Having a healthy environment is paramount to a functioning economy - an unhealthy environment will undoubtedly cause an economy to fail. A short-sighted focus on money now & worry about the consequences later has brought the world to the brink. Long-term sustainability is the only way forward. I'd take the *Greenies* over the *Greedies* any day.

3/10/2012 3:46:34 p.m.

vicki wrote:

@mike your arguments make no sense at all - wealth doesn't trickle down, you want wealth but you don't want to pay people more, you want wealth yet you want to continue with enterprise that unsustainable in a warming planet, you want wealth yet you don't want to share. Wealth is just wealth, for the greedy few who feel that life is made better by fancy things and a high lifestyle at the expense of the remaining majority of the population. Greens are the future, they fully support scientific discovery, innovation and technological advancement, just in a way that leaves us all better off, not just the rich minority that can avoid the realities of this changing world. How about you come and live at my house for a week and then you might actually see the real world, the one the rest of us live in.

3/10/2012 1:56:16 p.m.

Mike wrote:

Take GM food production and exclude it for the greens.
Take fisheries that greens want blocked.
Take farm production greens want blocked.

With those, the food produiction in the world will only feed around 2 billion.

Reality is wealth raises standard of living. Destroy wealth and you destroy standard of living.

Take the Obama printing money. This will give devaluation and infaltion and more US$ in the pocket, but less wealth, ie lower min wage.

Labour asking for the same here (drop effectively our $13.50 min wage to $10 through devaluation and inflation, as will make our exporters more competitive). Our min wage is too high, 9th in the world in 2011. We can't afford a min wage this high. For all the hype, the US min wage is $7.25, or around $9 NZ and they find that too high and uncompetitive, hence they chosing inflation and devaluation to lower it further (when we are 50% higher).

So we cant raise the min wage, as we cant afford it, reguardless of the 50% increase some idiot is asking for in our min wage. So what can we do if we dont raise the min wage? Well we could reduce costs elsewhere, and improve standard of living without raising the min wage. The RMA has strangled housing development so we have a housing shortage, and with it higher house prices and rental. We need more houses, plus we need lower cost housing built.

'The Block' had an old home, sure it was done up well, but still an old home sold for $961,000. We need to repeal some of Labours RMA to make housing cheaper and get more homes built. Of course the Greens will block any RMA change as they prefer people to pay too much for homes/rentals over food!

We also need to lower expectations. Eg Campbell Live had the basic apartments in central Auckland for $40-50,000 with shared facilities - but those too basic for kiwis to use, even when the mortage on them works out around $50 /week. If your short becasue rents too much, move. Its what generations of Kiwis have done.

3/10/2012 11:56:19 a.m.

john wrote:

Anyone that been research GMOs should be concerned.

3/10/2012 9:18:16 a.m.

vicki wrote:

@mike if the wealth in this world was distributed evenly or we spent even a fraction of the worlds military spending on food for the starving populations in the world there would be more than enough food to feed the entire world, so your argument is completely flawed. Greens are not anti-science, they are anti big companies profiting from the monopoly that GM crops create on seeds, they are anti frankin-science, they are anti starving children in the world. You are so wrong in what you say and you don't care about hungry people, your previous posts have proven that time and time again. May I ask, have you ever spent a day in your life hungry?