Genetically modified ice cream could be coming to Britain (already in US)

[lindisfarne]

The GM 99: Genetically modified ice cream could be coming to Britain
A fish from the Atlantic depths has lent its survival secret to a food giant searching for improved product 'texture'. By Geoffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen
Published: 09 July 2006

New designer ice cream, made possible by genetic modification, threatens to set off a "time bomb" in the health of British children, scientists are warning. The scientists, from Britain and Canada, have alerted an official committee which this month will rule on the safety of the ice cream, being sold increasingly worldwide by the food giant Unilever. It contains an artificial protein copied, through a GM process, from a fish living in the frigid waters of the bottom of the North-west Atlantic.

An "anti-freeze" protein allows the fish - the ocean pout - to survive extreme cold. Unilever, the world's biggest ice cream maker, says using its artificial equivalent allows it "to produce products with more intense flavour delivery, a wider range of novel textures and more intricate shapes".
<snip>

In theory, Unilever could go out and catch loads of the fish - an eel-like species that lives on the ocean floor - extract the protein and add it to the ice cream like any other ingredient. But this would be expensive and, as the company, which has a good record in combating overfishing, points out, would cut the population of the fish, whose stocks are already declining.

So it has resorted to a GM process already widely used to produce vitamins and enzymes for food, including vegetarian cheese. A synthetic gene for the protein is added by genetic modification to bakers' yeast, which is fermented to manufacture more. The protein is then extracted so that the final product does not contain any modified yeast cells. This has led to a semantic battle over whether the final product is "GM ice cream". Unilever says that it is not; the scientists maintain it is. "This is about as genetically modified a product as you can get," says Professor Cummins.

The more important debate is whether the end result is safe, particularly for children. Unilever accepts that the main danger is that people may prove allergic to the protein. But it points out that people have eaten its natural form in ocean pout for decades, and says that the artificial version is identical. It adds that extensive tests on the artificial protein for allergic effects gave it the all clear.
<snip>

[pooja]

1. What ice cream is this in?

Not that it matters much. I don't eat ice cream often enough to worry about it.

[katmondoo]

2. I think I will just give up Ice Cream

That fish turned me off, yuck

[TomClash]

3. That decides it!

Only Ben & Jerry's for me!

[KatyaR]

4. Yeah, me too, except

Unilever owns Ben & Jerry's, so that could be a problem.

[TomClash]

8. Really? Well . . .

I'll make my own damned ice cream!

[bananas]

5. link please? nt

[lindisfarne]

10. Link here (sorry, I thought I had pasted it in)

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1168240.ece

[TAPat]

6. I make my own from scratch -

it really doesn't take that much time and it's soooo much better than store bought :)

[Warpy]

7. Fishy ice cream? Yeah the idea sounds icky

but it doesn't sound particularly dangerous, since people have been eating those fish for a very long time with no serious consequences.

Consider also that modifying yeast and bacteria to produce substances has given us a large supply of human insulin, saving the lives of diabetics who developed allergies to pork insulin. Bacteria have also given us a supply of Hep B surface antigen, allowing large scale vaccination against that viru8s. Bacteria are turning out to be great friends once we give them some instructions on what to do for us.

I'm a lot more concerned over food adulterants that come from the chemical industry and over the hormones and antibiotics that are fed to the dairy cows.

Those are the reasons I'll give the stuff a pass. Fish proteins are small stuff.

[Odin2005]

9. The protiens don't carry an "essence" of "fishiness."

Be carefull not to use such "vitalist" termonology, it only confuses people. I had an argument with a friend who ignorantly thought that any peanut gene put into another organism would cause peanut allergies. :wtf: Only the gene that codes for the protien that causes the allergy should be avoided.

[lindisfarne]

11. The protein is changed in the processing, an may pose a danger.

The more important debate is whether the end result is safe, particularly for children. Unilever accepts that the main danger is that people may prove allergic to the protein. But it points out that people have eaten its natural form in ocean pout for decades, and says that the artificial version is identical. It adds that extensive tests on the artificial protein for allergic effects gave it the all clear.

Unexpectedly perhaps, many of the most prominent anti-GM pressure groups, including Friends of the Earth, GM Freeze, and Genewatch, say, in effect, that they are not too bothered, and that it is well down their priority list. But the scientists, who have a record of GM scepticism, are deeply disturbed, as is The Soil Association.

The scientists insist that the protein is changed in the processing, and may pose a danger. Professor Hooper told The Independent on Sunday yesterday: "This is a novel protein manufactured by genetically modified organisms and its characteristics have never been fully evaluated. It needs to be checked out before it is widely introduced into the human diet."

He and his colleagues also dispute the adequacy of Unilever's safety checks, not least because it checked the protein against the blood of people allergic to cod, not the pout fish.
<snip>
The Soil Association says research shows that "genetic engineering produces a range of unpredictable biological side-effects". This includes, it is believed, "new toxins and allergens even if the original GM material is absent".

more at the link
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1168240.ece

[Up2Late]

12. This is the part that really bugs me too...

"...He and his colleagues also dispute the adequacy of Unilever's safety checks, not least because it checked the protein against the blood of people allergic to cod, not the pout fish...."

Just another reason NOT to trust major Corporations.:mad: