Broiler chicken are engineered to be “meat birds” as distinct from “laying birds” Broiler eggs are engineered to be fully / partially infertile. Isn’t there an imminent possibility of the infertility of the meat and eggs affecting the person whose food habits include chicken and eggs?

Is there any research done on this topic?

Or on the effect of fruits, vegetables and pulses produced out of infertile farm seeds?

(In nature a seed sprouts into a plant which produces seeds. Commercial Farming uses seeds from seed companies who produce engineered seeds that sprout into plants that DO NOT produce seeds)

Is there any research done on the effect of eating fruits and vegetables grown from such infertile seeds?

Some resources about Broiler chickens, though there is not much of information about daughter-chickens* whose reproductivity is controlled by genetic engineering. (* - The term daughter-chickens is coined to denote chickens hatched out of eggs laid by the “parent stock chickens) There is not much information about eggs laid by the “laying-birds”. These eggs are usually engineered not to hatch?

http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/garden/156/broilers.html

There is an interesting movie starring Jude Law directed by David Cronnerberg eXistenZ which has a surrealistic theme of a Virtual Game within a Virtual Game. There is a scene in the movie that takes place in a restuaurant where Jude Law is served meat from “excotic new species” - animals or birds? without a head or with multiple heads. Today’s poultry engineers the birds to have stronger legs, fleshy bodies, smaller intestines, controlled reproduction etc., with the idea of making optimizing prime-meat in chicken. Are we far away from engineering chickens without a head and tail because nobody eats them?

Another dimension of this issue is the conditions in a poultry It is typical of at least 70% of all poultry produced to have cruel conditions. Please see the following images:

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken-egg-01.jpg
http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken-egg-02.jpg
http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/garden/156/broilers.html

There are a few large poultry farms in countries with stringent regulations where the cage size is more scientific and the space per bird would be larger. These are not what could be taken as representative of the Industry’s practices. A PR executive from a poultry industry might show case the showpiece cages with ergonomic water feed etc... but that wouldn’t be typical.

This is the Question as posed in Linked In

The following has been the Discussion on this Question so far.

The links on the name of the respondents would not work if you have not signed up and logged into Linked In

Eli Roberson Human Genetics Graduate Student at Kennedy Krieger Institute

My initial response would be that I have no reason to believe that the infertility of an animal, fruit, or vegetable would effect the fertility of a person eating it. The only exception to this I would think would be if the items are infertile due to fertility destroying chemical treatment that would affect humans (which the FDA wouldn’t allow if there was any evidence in support of it) or if the food items contained hormones close enough to the human hormone structure that was stable enough to survive stomach acid and intestinal denaturation, cross into the blood stream, and remain stable. Either way, if there was evidence to support this hypothesis then these items wouldn’t be allowed to come to market.

I replied:

Sorry for having taken so long to reply to your response. I have been traveling.

It is perhaps not scientifically established that the infertility of an animal or fruit would affect the fertility. But if you analyse it logically, perhaps in reverse, you would begin to question how an aphrodisiac work. Certain food substances are believed to have aphrodisiac properties, even certain forms of meat, lamb for instance, or parts of lamb, are believed to contribute to enhance the virility of a person. How does it happen ? It happens because the food that one consumes takes effect on a person’s biology. So how could the reverse be untrue ?

He countered by saying:

The logic of your clarification seems circular, like saying all butterflies are moths so all moths are butterflies (not true). Either way, the example of aphrodisiacs of ANY kind is related to sexual desire, not fertility. An increase in sexual desire isn’t an increase in fertility. Even if a person was purposefully, directly exposed to a drug or biological molecule that decreased sexual desire that isn’t the same as decreasing fertility.

I replied:

Hello Roberson

Thank you for your response.

Richard Krajewski a writer from Greater New York City area said:

Who says you have to eat that stuff? Just eat organic food and stop worrying. A few flower pots on a porch, and you’ll have all the natural peas, tomatoes, and raspberries you could possibly want. Plant a few walnut and apple trees in the backyard (if you have one), and you’ll have to start giving food away, there will be so much.

I replied:

Hello Richard Krajewski,

Thank you for your response. I am sorry to have taken over two weeks to respond, I was traveling.

Thank you for your response.

Arnab Sengupata Head New Projects at Living Media India Limited said:

I completely agree with Richard’s POV.That’s applicable even if you are a fish eater. Try a small tank :)

Going back to your worries, Eli’s argument is right. We should actually be more bothered by the huge quantities of “poison” or chemicals entering our systems.

We can be fertile & reproduce only when we live long enough I’d guess.

As an afterthought, as long as the organs function properly, we may not require to add to the global population. Resources are already on such a premium!

I know many who enjoy chewing (cooked) chicken heads.

I replied:

Thank you for your response. Richard’s point of view is quite valid in a limited sense. It is valid for those who have the awareness and knowledge about the goodness of alternate foods But it so happens that chicken and egg are consumed in regular, huge quantities in parts of the world. And as you have pointed out, many people enjoy ‘chewing’ chicken...

Thank you for your response.

Phillip Sukkar Owner of Owner of BC Biogenics Pty Ltd from Sydney Area, Australia said:

Yhe only way that these types of food products would make us infertile or impotent is if they are deficient in the nutrients that help us maintain our fertility and libido or if they were substantially abundant in nutrients (including hormones, etc) that actually reduce fertility and libido.

Furthermore, one would need to consume these products quite regularly and in fairly large amounts for many, many years to result in substantial genetic mutations that would have ongoing affects on both the individual and the individual’s offspring.

I replied:

Broiler chicken and eggs do happen to be deficient in nutrients. Not much research have gone into identifying fertility related nutrients, nor any research done on the levels or or the total absence of such nutrients in meat from chicken or eggs ‘grown and harvested’ out of infertile seeds.

parts of [other parts that are made into animal food etc] indirectly gets back into our food chain in some form.

Prabat Sinha CEO of SMG an Event Services Company, India said:

Hi Siva,

I don’t quite know about the infertility issue, but I can send you part of authentic document

National Geography Survey Quote:

“To provide enough beef, chicken, and pork to meet the demand, the livestock industry has moved to factory farming. Producing eight ounces of beef requires 6,600 gallons (25,000 liters) of water; 95 percent of world soybean crops are consumed by farm animals, and 16 percent of the world’s methane, a destructive greenhouse gas, is produced by belching, flatulent livestock. The enormous quantities of manure produced at factory farms becomes toxic waste rather than fertilizer, and runoff threatens nearby streams, bays, and estuaries.

Chickens at a typical farm are kept in cages with about nine square inches (about 60 square centimeters) of space per bird. To force them to lay more eggs, they are often starved. Chickens slaughtered for meat are first fattened up with hormones, sometimes to the point where their legs can no longer support their weight.

Crowded conditions can lead to the rapid spread of disease among the animals. To prevent this, antibiotics are included in their feed. The World Health Organization reports that the widespread use of these drugs in the livestock industry is helping breed antibiotic-resistant microbes, complicating the treatment of disease in both animals and people.”

Cheers

Prabhat

I replied:

Hello Prabhat Sinha,

Thank you for your response.Please also forward this question to those whom you know are experts.

Soledad Quiroz Graduate Student at Heinz School, Carnegie Mellon University said:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!! I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and I can ASSURE you there is NO CHANCE for this to happen.
The first answer is very good. Plus, if they were to inject something to make the chicken infertile, they would have to inject 100 times more to make it effective in human. If you add that you eat the meat cook, the cooking process gets rid of most of what may have been inyected.
If the infertility is made by genetics, there is NO MEANS to affect the human body.

This is the kind of comments that only scares people with no scientific base. I know the details and I am not scared. Knowledge is power, so please, read more (and not just press articles), ask to the people who knows.

Do not grow this questions into fear with no real facts behind it.

Soledad Quiroz

PS: My profile says “graduate student” because now I am getting another degree.

I replied:

Hello Soledad Quiroz,

Thank you for your response.

He countered:

Dear Sivasubramanian,

We know much more than you think, that’s the point. If you are really concern about GM food, learn, do not imagine. Ask to people who knows why they are not concern or if they are concern. Ask for FACTS. That is what I ask you, rely on facts and knowledge, not in unfunded fears.

Do you know when you see a movie how many of the things there are just not physically possible? well, you know enough physics to know that, but many others do not know. This is what I feel when somebody says he/she is afraid of genetically modified organisms.

If you wish, I can look for some information for you on the subject or some other people you can talk to.

best regards,

Soledad

Valentin Chirosca Commercial Driver at Panther Expedited Services from Greater Detroit Area said :

Eggs are the best source for proteins for human! And almost complete!

I replied:

Hello Valentin Chirosca,

Thank you for your response.

Kevin Mullen Application Specialist at Wyeth, Greater Philadelphia Area said:

9 square inches? What kind of chickens do you eat?

I replied:

Hello Kevin Mullen,

There are a few large poultry farms in countries with stringent regulations where the cage size is more scientific and the space per bird would be larger. These are not what could be taken as representative of the Industry’s practices. A PR executive from a poultry industry might show case the showpiece cages with ergonomic water feed etc... but that wouldn’t be typical.

He wrote back to say:

A 9 square inch cage would measure 3 inches by 3 inches, a chicken would not fit in a cage that small.

I clarified:

Hello Kevin Mullen,

One possibility is that this calculation was based on “floor area” occupied. If the cages are multi level cages, the floor area is area alloted to a chicken in a cage level divided by the number of levels, so the 9 square inch indicated possibly as floor area is actually derived from a study.

Alan Burgess Chief Medical Officer at HealthONE from Greater Denver Area said:

Soledad and Eli are correct. I hope scientific claims and opinions on this forum can remain evidence-based. Pseudoscience and health-care nonsense might best be posted elsewhere...Please?

I replied:

Hello Alan Burgess,

Thank you for your response.

Eric Oermann Medical Student at Georgetown University School of Medicine said

I just want to second Alan. Soledad and Eli are correct, and in response to the OP, it doesn’t even make “logical sense” even “in reverse” - whatever that means. This topic belongs in some sort of “healthcare rumors and hearsay” category, not biotech. Incidentally, and more importantly, why isn’t there a larger number of categories dedicated to healthcare, biotech, and pharma?

I replied:

Hello Eric Oermann,

Thank you for your response.

Gerald Lo Director, Engineering and Technical Services at Nycomed from Greater New York city area said:

Vanakkam, Mr Muthusamy

Well, there is the old Western expression “You are what you eat,” which might possibly explain my fondness for goose as well as jerk chicken...

Some scientists believe that the domestic chicken originated in Southeast Asia, and that the noble progenitor of our modern poultry might be at risk of genetic dilution through miscegenation.

In this regard, perhaps the infertility may be a desirable feature of the genetically modified organism, but I am no scientist.

As regards infertility in human consumers, I suspect there are other environmental factors contributing in greater proportion to our modern pathologies.

Again, I am not a scientist, but observe that there are today more of us living longer than ever before.

I have been consuming chicken since I was little, and have yet to acquire any of the aspects of that noble creature (including its procreative habits).

We of Southern Chinese extraction are inordinately fond of roast capon, which consumption has not seemed to yet have deleteriously affected the health or apparent viability of my three children.

It is my very rudimentary understanding that the human digestion process is capable of assimilating prodigious quantities of nutrients, but also at a macromolecular level rather considerably coarser than at the scale of embedded genetic materials.

I believe one may find online many posts to the effect that genetically modified organisms have not yet received statistically sufficient safety testing to qualify as reliable sources of nutrition, and a few to the effect that a vast industrial conspiracy is afoot.

Poyit vareen, Sir.

Links:

* http://www.avianweb.com/junglefowl.html
* http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/23/2868
* http://www.sujitfoundation.com/index.htm

I replied:

Hello Gerald Lo,

Thank you again for your response

Alan Burgess Chief Medical Officer at HealthONE from Greater Denver area wrote again:

SM,

I am with Albert, modest as he was, careful to not overestimate science. But Carl Sagan added something like, “…it’s also not great for the human condition to believe extraordinary claims not supported by any evidence”.

Since chicken is one of the healthiest, cheapest and universally available protein sources in the world, are you most concerned with the fate of chickens (that is, consuming them would be fine if they were to be natural, range-fed birds and humanely processed)?

Or, are you simply advocating vegetarianism in general, using this as a specific justification?

AB

I wrote

Hello Alan Burgess,

Thank you, I hope I have clarified to some extent.

He futher responsed saying:

Hello SM,

I would be more convinced by your argument if there was currently an outbreak or near-epidemic of illnesses, poisonings, or other mysterious adverse health outcomes that seemed to be correlated with the amount of chicken or egg consumption. Then, there would be a definite need to stretch the hypotheses as to why this could be happening.

But, there is no such thing. In fact, I see the opposite: “first-world” populations who are consuming the highest quantities of the processed foods you opine about remain the healthiest on the planet...and populations who are struggling too avoid starvation, mostly getting food the natural old-fashioned way, have extraordinarily high rates of food and water-borne illness and markedly shortened life spans.

AB

James Wallace Director of Business Development at The Enilon Group from Dallas / Fort Worth area wrote:

I don’t know, but this is just another uncertainty that re enforces my decision to a vegetarian.

I replied:

Dear James Wallace,

Thank you for your response. “I don’t Know” is perhaps the best possible answer to this question. The truth is that we don’t know.
Thank you again for your response

Vaikutnth Kasturirangan Global Sales & Marketing Manager at Micropace Pty Ltd from Greater Los Angeles Area said :

Anything which is taken in right quantities is GOOD. Chicken/Egg if taken too much/too frequently may cause problems.

Chicken should be absolutely contraindicated in Pregnant women/women who plan to have a baby. The scientific concept behind that is chicken adds too much of heat to the body. Egg white (without YOLK) is supposed to be the best protein source & hence no problems.

Chicken is the best meat option for patients with cardiac disorders. However, it is always recommended to be a “Vegetarian” (dont understand this as vegan) to lead a longer healthier life. Occasional intake of meat (for people who are so used to “meat”) is fine.

Alternatively Duck’s egg is supposed to be good for health, as it cools down the body! Good luck for your hunt...

Vaikunth

Just came in. Haven’t replied to Vaikunth

Mohammed Hussain Kalsekar SEM Manager at Communicte2 from Bombay India said:

I don’t think so, Siva. Its just the way you take it. Consuming on a high rate can be bad. And if you intake anything in excess, it not good at all.

Just came in. Haven’t replied to Mohammed