GM Chinese cows express milk with some proteins found in human milk, UK press reports "OMG! Cows give breast milk!"

A paper by scientists at China Agricultural University published in March 2011 in PLOS One details a study on transgenic cows that have been modified to express some compounds found in human breast-milk in their milk. The researchers claim the milk contains lysozyme (an antimicrobial protein), lactoferrin (a protein involved with the immune system) and alpha-lactalbumin. The researchers claim that this milk would be a suitable substitute for human breast milk, but do not cite any studies or data to directly support this claim.

The reporting on this in the UK press is textbook bad science. Writing in April, the Telegraph's science reporter Richard Gray describes the cows as "physically identical" to non-transgenic cows (presumably he thinks that DNA exists solely in the realm of pure maths or possibly in the astral plane). He also credulously repeats the claim that because this milk contains proteins found in human breast milk, it will be a suitable substitute, and implies that there is some benefit known to arise from drinking breast milk into adulthood. Much of his story revolves around the European controversy over GM foods.

A more recent report on Rupert Murdoch's Sky News is (predictably) much worse than the Telegraph, however. An article by-lined "Holly Williams, Beijing correspondent" describes the cows' milk as "human breast milk" (the leap from "cow's milk with some proteins found in human milk" to "human milk" being rather a large one). Williams cites dairy workers on the farm where the cows live as authorities on the nutritional value of the milk ("It's better for you because it's genetically modified."). Like the Telegraph, the Sky report is mostly a critique of EU rules and conventions on GM food, and has the thinly veiled subtext of "Our Eurocrat lords and lefty loonies are holding back nutrition."

Neither report links to the original study or mentions its title.

Characterization of Bioactive Recombinant Human Lysozyme Expressed in Milk of Cloned Transgenic Cattle (Plos One)

Genetically modified cows produce 'human' milk (Telegraph)

Chinese GM Cows Make Human Breast Milk

(via JWZ)

(Image: Cow, a Creative Commons Attribution (2.0) image from nuskyn's photostream)

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

More at Boing Boing

Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy

The Snowden Principle

nickninelives

The problem here is that research is generally very thin. It is however believed that breast milk opens doors to specific receptors. A current theory is that when these “doorways” are opened other foreign bodies make their way in. This is thought to be one of the causes of Type 1 sugar diabetes, currently one of the biggest medical problems in this world. This is pseudo-science at its most scary and will only lead to disaster.
g0d5m15t4k3

Yay! Bad reporting! I wonder if regular cow milk tastes different than this human enzyme containing cow milk…
Anonymous

If it is ever commercialized they could brand it Soylent White. Hmm, I feel a jingle coming on.
Anonymous

Or the more thinly veiled subtext:
“GMO research stocks are burning a hole in my employer’s pocket. Will somebody think of the businessmen?”
benher

Chinese milk is known to cause breast growth. This whole thing is almost cyclical:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7936456/Tainted-Chinese-baby-milk-powder-causes-baby-girls-to-grow-breasts.html
didymos

Of course, “it’s better for you because it’s organic” is right up there with “it’s better for you because it’s genetically modified” in terms of feelings-based pseudo-scientific conjecture. I don’t know how anybody buys either of these statements given the dearth of factual evidence to back them up.
Anonymous

Good job, Mr. Doctorow… the fake conflict between science and environmentalism needs to be pointed out more often.

It’s like a litmus test; real scientists are not part of any bipolar division between planet-wrecking, ultra-wealthy plastics vendors and tree-worshipping, smelly hippies. Those roles are already adequately filled by non-scientists.
Anonymous

“Possible substitute” and “suitable substitute” are not the same thing.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out who gets this right and who gets it wrong.
Samson

The reporting on this in the UK press is textbook bad science. Writing in April, the Telegraph’s science reporter Richard Gray describes the cows as “physically identical” to non-transgenic cows (presumably he thinks that DNA exists solely in the realm of pure maths or possibly in the astral plane).

I believe you’re conflating the distinct concepts of phenotype and genotype.
- SamSam
  
  Meh. While I thought this post could use a heavy dose of Maggie, this statement was fine. If the cows produce different proteins, then they have a different phenotype, and are physically different.
  
  I think, though, that it was completely and utterly clear from the article that the article was saying that the cows are physically identical apparent from the change in milk proteins. And this is perfectly believable.
  
  Indeed, half of Cory’s complaints about the Telegraph article are ridiculous. “The reporting on this in the UK press is textbook bad science… He credulously repeats the claim that because this milk contains proteins found in human breast milk, it will be a suitable substitute.”
  
  No, he doesn’t credulously repeat anything. He quotes a scientist as saying “The modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk.” That’s what journalists do. He wasn’t stating it. Someone needs a refresher in journalism. Now sure, he could have gotten someone else to refute the claim, but unless that person had activity been studying this milk that had been produced, how would they be an equal expert on the subject?
wylkyn

Perhaps he meant “bad” in the colloquial sense – like “bad-ass science” (not to be confused with bad ass-science)
Anonymous

I thought Cory’s text was excellent and concisely delivered his point of view, which is well supported by the links he provides.

I’m not clear on why other people are rushing to the defense of bad reporting by accusing Cory of bad reporting, but, hey, I guess if you have an adze to grind any stone will do.

Anyway, I’m not logging in because I don’t want to look like a suck-up. Excellent post, Cory! Having this information will be useful to me when my family starts excitedly talking about Japanese cows with human breasts (which is how this story will be transmogrified by the time it passes through my sister-in-law).
SamSam

The more I read the original journal article and Telegraph article, the worse I think this post is.

First, the Telegraph article is not “textbook bad science” at all. The only legitimate complaint you have is the line stating that the cows are “physically identical” to other cows, and I think it’s perfectly clear that this means “physically identical appart from the different proteins.”

You also say that “The researchers claim that this milk would be a suitable substitute for human breast milk, but do not cite any studies or data to directly support this claim.”

Actually, they do spend quite a large part of their article describing why the presence of the additional lysozymes in the milk would be beneficial to infants’ imune systems and ability to prevent infection. Lysozymes are added to better infant formulas, and babies fed formula lacking it suffer from increased diarrhea and other problems.

So the researchers are positing that the addition of this known important substance would make cow milk better for infants than regular cow milk, in the same way that the addition of it makes infant formula better than infant formula without it. This is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, an is how the advancement of science works. Do you have a reason to suggest that it’s a bad hypothesis?

And again, they didn’t claim it would be a suitable substitute. They hypothesized that it might be. It’s not like anyone’s already feeding this to babies.

In short: this research seemed perfectly valid. They haven’t made any claims beyond what they should make with the existing science available. They made a reasonable hypothesis that they haven’t tested yet. And the Telegraph article was fine.

Try to get over your “ZOMG Frankenfoods!” filter before dismissing things as “bad science.”
- Anonymous
  
  Cory’s objections about the reporting are well deserved. Just look at the title:
  
  “Chinese scientists have genetically modified dairy cows to produce human breast milk”
  
  That’s incorrect. In addition, it’s nonsense (though common) to repeat self-serving statements without any sort of challenge. It’s better because it’s genetically modified? They really made a herd of 300 recombinant cows? This is going to help feed mankind (what is the unmet need?), and we should therefore ignore ethical concerns?
randomguy

On one hand, I’m amazed by the speed at which scientific development is racing ahead. And, on the other, I’m fairly certain that scientists somewhere will inadvertently unleash an Army of The 12 Monkeys-style plague that effectively wipes us all out.