From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.animals
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:54:31 GMT


Martin Hulsey writes:
mh> ...  If vegans could eat their weight in food daily, they 
mh> would STILL not get the necessary amount of B12 in their diet.  

Russell Lawrence writes...
rl> Would you consider gorillas and orangs to be "vegans"?  Do they get
rl> the necessary amount of B12 in their diets?

From article <1992Oct12.132605.6483@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> No, I consider the great apes to be omnivorous.  Didn't I see Clint 
mh> Eastwood's sidekick Clyde eat a burger once?  I don't care to argue 
mh> about orangutan nutrition in either case.  The issue here is whether 
mh> information from the PCRM is bogus.  Can you not address this issue?

No, the issue here is whether your claims were well-founded.  How 
much animal material does the average gorilla or orang consume 
each day?  

You said that vegans could eat their weight in food daily, but 
still not get the necessary amount of B12 in their diet.  How do 
gorillas and orangs get the necessary amount of B12 in their 
diets?   By eating mock hamburgers on a Hollywood movie set
perhaps???

rl> How many micrograms of B12 are contained in a pound of soil?

mh> Because dirt contains many bacteria, it would likely also contain B12.  
mh> I do not recall that the bioavailability of this source is demonstrated 
mh> in humans.

Can you think of any reason why B12 from bacteria in the soil would 
not be available to humans?

rl> How much soil does the average vegan consume during a lifetime? 

mh> Very little, I hope.  When people eat dirt or things such as laundry 
mh> starch, it is called pica.  This is considered an eating disorder.

I've heard that even the average city-dweller inadvertently 
consumes four pounds of dirt each year.  I'm sure the amount is 
far higher among those of us who don't peel our root crops.  
Perhaps we could understand this potential source of B12 much
better after you explain where gorillas and orangs get their B12.  

rl> An article in the October, 1992 issue of _Scientific American_ 
rl> mentioned that one of the authors of the July, 1992 NEJM article 
rl> about milk~diabetes has been approached by several dairy and 
rl> cattle groups who were enquiring about the possibility of 
rl> creating transgenic cattle to alter the similarity between 
rl> bovine serum albumin and p69.  Is it reasonable, in your opinion,
rl> for these groups to be planning ahead just in case the
rl> link between milk consumption and diabetes is unequivocally 
rl> established in the future?   Why/why_not? 

mh> It could be construed as an ass-covering move.  On the other hand, if 
mh> gene products in milk prove protective against IDDM or other diseases 
mh> (as suggested by the work I cited), it might be beneficial to enhance 
mh> their expression in this manner.

Please explain why it's ethically acceptable for dairy and cattle 
groups to investigate transgenic cattle while still claiming that 
their products are perfectly safe.   Why is it unethical, in your
opinion, for PCRM to warn consumers about a danger that dairy industry 
representatives apparently consider serious?

mh> If a gene product (bovine or otherwise) is identified that is an oral 
mh> preventative agent for IDDM, don't you think that the transgenic cow's 
mh> udder would be a great place to express it?. Just imagine.  No 50,000 
mh> liter stainless fermentors ($$).  No preparative-scale protein 
mh> purification to remove bacterial products ($$$$).  Just good ol' 
mh> transgenic Bossy wandering up to the milker just like she already does.  
mh> No shots for junior, just drink your milk.

You're evading the issue.

According to the _Scientific American_ article that I mentioned, the
dairy and cattle groups were exploring the possibility of transgenic
cattle because they were concerned about the link between cow's milk
and diabetes.   Do you believe their concerns are less farfetched than
the concerns of PCRM?

> ...
rl> In such a case, would you agree that it's even more premature for 
rl> representatives of dairy farmers to investigate the possibility of
rl> transgenic cattle?

mh>  Absolutely not.  As I alluded to above, there are many good reasons why 
mh>  the Dairy Board might want to fund research on transgenic cows.  You 
mh>  shouldn't presume that every action in the research community is 
mh>  sinister.

Permit me to quote from the _Scientific American_ article 
mentioned previously (p. 26):

"...  Bovine serum albumin is in so many different products, it 
would be difficult if not impossible to keep somebody off that 
for years.  

"For these reasons, Dosch and other researchers are looking into
other ways to apply their work.  One possibility is a vaccine that
builds tolerance to bovine serum albumin.  'We have a vaccine now
that prevents the disease (diabetes) in 80 percent of the rats.
Unfortunately, the other 20% get the disease quicker and worse,'
Dosch says wryly.  An alternative approach would be for genetic
engineers to create transgenic cows that have bovine serum
albumin not so similar to p69.  Changes at only a few amino acid
positions would be sufficent, he explains, adding that several
dairy and cattle industry groups in the U.S. and Europe have been
in touch with him about this possibility."

Please read the last sentence very carefully and make note of the 
fact that the dairy industry folks were apparently concerned 
about the relationship between bovine serum albumin and p69.  Are
these considers legitimate or not?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals