Comments:Genetically modified dairy cows produce 'human milk'

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

It's simply inhumane to do this to cows for milk. Besides, if the government doesn't tackle the 'bad milk' problem soon, this will give dishonest merchants an excellent opportunity for faking. We'll just end up with more radical parents in jail. Can't we just slowly but surely discourage, and at the end ban, cow's milk? Much better than using 'technology' like this.

Why discourage or ban cow's milk? It's healthy. Good for the bones.

Sorry you have been misinformed, cows milk is not good. Wasteful in resources and of the drinker's bone. http://www.vegansociety.com/lifestyle/nutrition/diet-and-bone-health.aspx

Some story and brief scenario presentation at Vegan Eye: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5158538349

Yep. Milk sucks. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/dairy-industry.aspx

PETA have their own radically extremist agenda. You are also, possibly willfully, choosing to overlook that a very large number of humans have evolved beyond lactose intolerance.

Lastly, what of mothers whose offspring start teething at a very early age? A child can be past the stage where needed antibodies are passed to them through the mother's milk, but still in a situation where they will best digest the proteins introduced here by genetic modification.

In any case, for people like myself, I prefer to translate the PETA acronym as People for the Eating of Tasty Animals; there's nothing quite like a perfectly cooked slab of dead animal.

1. Excuse me, we Chinese haven't 'evolved' and this discussion is about China. :) Different people have different definitions of 'a very large number', but I don't consider one-third of the world's population particularly large.
2. They can use soya milk, which is like cow's minus the increased risks of allergies, heart diseases, obesity, malnutrition and osteoporosis.

Sorry if I'm being too blunt, but the lies about milk being good leaves no grounds for AGF.

Biased vegetarian website. Also, milk tastes great, especially with chocolate, and so do diary products.

What's bias? Governments who waste money subsidising the livestock industry - and the industry itself? Or vegetarian websites that have no CoIs whatsoever in relation to the milk industry?

P.S. There's no accounting for tastes... :P

Governments waste and make money no matter who's right, in the end. If it were true that cow milk was bad, that would be an excellent excuse to tax the crap out of it and make even more money, like they do with cigarettes. Of course you can't trust the industry, but you can't trust a vegan organization either; their credibility and, by extension, their survival both depend on their version of events being true. Best you can do is trust universities, who get enough money that no matter what they do, in the end, it doesn't matter what's right since they're still getting subsidized and leeching off of students. You can always trust in greed.

Yeah, like the greedy universities who get money from Monsanto. I trust them completely over healthy vegans.

Why would a vegetarian website be against milk? Vegetarians DRINK milk... Stop slandering the good name of vegetarians by associating them with PETA and vegans!

True. Sheep and goat milk are easier to digest, if you have the right digestion genes. Only Europeans and Indians have them.

Cows milk is only good for one type of animal. A calf. It's not intended in any way for humans, and frankly, the quicker we stop using it and let the Cows do what they're supposed to be doing with it (feeding their kids instead of ours) the better.

You are only partially right. Some thousands of years ago, certain races domesticated animals such as goats and cows for their meat. However, until these were slaughtered, the females of these species gave off milk, which those people realized could be given to their children instead of thrown away. Back then, only children could digest milk, but the naturally some children could digest it until a later age, and some stopped being able at an earlier age. The ones who could digest milk for longer got the benefit of the extra food (something hard to come by at the time), and thus had higher chances of spreading their milk digestion gene.

Most of the descendants of these races can digest milk until old age today, because milk gave them a higher chance of spreading their genes. If milk is unhealthy, they would have a LOWER chance of spreading the gene, and only children would be able to digest it today.

i am getting myself 1 o'those...

There are many benefits to human milk, "human proteins" is not why it is best.

"Our study describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers the similar nutritional benefits as human milk," Li wrote in the journal.

Breastfeeding: A mother's body provides immunities to mutually contracted virus. Milk supply is regulated naturally. (It's hard to underfeed/overfeed) Contents of milk change with needs.

The only way I see this being commercially available is if mothers are convinced it's a valid replacement. Most mothers are perfectly capable of breastfeeding.

Crazy-ass China.

That was my impression as well - human milk provides antibodies to the baby. I didn't see anything about antibodies in the article, just proteins.

Most mothers, but not all, and if I remember correctly there isn't enough to go around. A better, cheaper substitute than the ones we have (and use!) would help.

I'd like more opinions from different sources, especially animal rights groups.

Great news! Keep writing so we get these understandings of genetically modified experiencies in a better view...

Because God is trying to stop it! He is doing everything within his power to derail this godless behaviour for our own good! And if you do not stop you will soon enough feel his wrath!

Shouldn't you be burning a Qur'an?

I would but I'm fresh out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Lengthening_telomeres When you clone an animal, you take it's telomere length along with its DNA. The shortened telomeres provide a shorter life span. This can be observed in the case of Dolly, the cloned sheep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)#Death' Where is your god now?

Mother's milk is undoubtedly very important for a baby to develop a healthy body when he grows up. I believe that when a child is breasfed for two years or more, he will likely to resist diseases. My mom breasfed me for three years and during those times I never got sick. I grew up with strong immune system. I have resisted common diseases like colds, fever, or cough. But of course, good health depends on good lifestyle, too. My point here is, infant milk should be produced by human mothers and should not be replaced by GMO from cows. Cows milk is healthy, I even drink it everyday, but should not be given to infants.

Not 'human milk' that is, but a lively debate provoked by a Wikinews article?

That is the entire point of the Comments: namespace.

yer ma loves it

I think the articles is misleading and doesn't explain the situation correctly.

What's the actual situation?

If you eat meat from one of these Frankencows, does that make you part cannibal?

No, that should make you full cannibal. :) LOL

This is further down the path of really disturbing GMO advances. While some GMOs have benefits, there is not enough study into the implications of the changes for our society.