alocispepraluger102 Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 US approves cloned meat for human consumption, yum! — SN @ 10:00 am The Register - 28th December 2006: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will declare today that meat from cloned animals is safe to eat. A safety assessment released on Thursday is expected to approve the entry of products from genetically identical cattle and other livestock into the human food chain. The FDA indicated which way the wind was blowing back in 2005. Now an article published by its scientists in the journal Theriogenology dated January 1 forms the scientific basis of the approval. Larisa Rudenko and John C Matheson wrote: “[The FDA] concludes that meat and milk from clones and their progeny is as safe to eat as corresponding products derived from animals produced using contemporary agricultural practices”. The pair said no special labelling of cloned meat would be needed, which has outraged some consumer groups. AP reports Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Centre for Food Safety, said: “Consumers are going to be having a product that has potential safety issues and has a whole load of ethical issues tied to it, without any labelling.” There has been a voluntary moratorium on cloned meat and milk in place for five years Stateside. Industrial scale ranchers have been keen to see the shackles off, as cloning would allow them to reproduce their tastiest, or biggest, or fastest growing individuals ad infinitum. The announcement is unlikely to have an immediate impact down at WalMart though. Attrition rates for cloning are still far too high for it to be economical to clone meat on an industrial scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 <shrug> Cloned or not, it's just meat. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 I think there should at least be a label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 (edited) I think there should at least be a label. Yes. Though I must say I find "clone-ophobia" to be strange. Guy Edited December 28, 2006 by Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 I think there should at least be a label. Yeah, they could just xerox off a few... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 The national trend in animal husbandry has veered off course in the past few years. Animals are raised in considerably more appalling conditions than they were 50 years ago, and they have to pump them full of antibiotics to make them survive. That's true, but completely tangential to cloning. Has anyone called into question the need for cloning of animals for meat? Did cows and chickens lose their manuals for lovin'? Well, if certain animals have genetic traits that make them better suited for providing meat, then cloning is a more effective way of replicating those traits than breeding. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 I think there should at least be a label. Yes. Though I must say I find "clone-ophobia" to be strange. Guy For me, it is less about fearing something as objecting to it. The national trend in animal husbandry has veered off course in the past few years. Animals are raised in considerably more appalling conditions than they were 50 years ago, and they have to pump them full of antibiotics to make them survive. Has anyone called into question the need for cloning of animals for meat? Did cows and chickens lose their manuals for lovin'? Well, I guess being raised in a box saps your will to live... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 Is it time to revisit....The Meatrix? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 The national trend in animal husbandry has veered off course in the past few years. Animals are raised in considerably more appalling conditions than they were 50 years ago, and they have to pump them full of antibiotics to make them survive. That's true, but completely tangential to cloning. Has anyone called into question the need for cloning of animals for meat? Did cows and chickens lose their manuals for lovin'? Well, if certain animals have genetic traits that make them better suited for providing meat, then cloning is a more effective way of replicating those traits than breeding. Guy Discussing animal husbandry is not tangential whatsoever. Unless scientists are ready to grow steaks in the lab, they will be growing them on cows in an agricultural setting. This points to a more industrialized food chain with more potential for corruption on a number of levels, genetic, political, and otherwise. We have seen some of it already, with the reluctance to affix labels describing the products as such. I don't see many folks squeamish about the labels affixed to alcohol bottles. Groundskeeper Willie, I don't understand what you are arguing here. You can have cloned animals treated humanely; you can have non-cloned animals treated inhumanely. The too issues are not related. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chas Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 The sweetest meat is closest to the clone... The real ructions will not be over cloned meat , but rather In Vitro meat . And it's not the ALF or PETA that will raise a ruckus but rather carnivores , who know that without fat or bone , meat is a lot less toothsome . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porcy62 Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 Some questions for Guy Is cloned animals able to reproduce by theirself? Are they strong enough for resisting at diseases? Do we have the right to know what we are eating? Who own the technology and the patents for clonig? Until now, farmers usually buy selected sperm from selected bulls from selected purposes: milk or meat. We naturally selected animals during centuries for some specific purposes, some animal were multipurpose, for example in the mountain regions of the so called 'third world' cow must be strong enough for carrying a plow, for resisting the adverse climate, disease, ecc. It happened the same with agriculture. In poor countries the intensive and specific agriculture push small farmers on the global market and violated the natural tendencies of a kind of soil. The results can be good or disasastrous. If I start to grow a plant that needs a lot of water in a semidesert countryside, I'll need more water, and if I have a prolonged dry season the farmer loose all. Or if the prize of this specific product fall in the global market the farmer loose all again. That's why we had for centuries a differentiate agriculture, you grow eggplants, that need a lot of water, and lentils for dry seasons. The disappearance of a big range of plants and animals because of profit could be not such a big business for us in long term. Scientists know it and they start to collect plants on the way of extinction because of ultra specific tendencies of the market. As every businessmen can explain you, their goal is profit in a short or midterm, otherwise they will be fired. Long term issues like the survival of the planet or the poor farmers is less important then dividends at the end of the year. When I was a baby, back in the sixties, we all thought we will have started a colonization of other planets, foresee natural disasters, produce robots that relief the life of people, clean and secure energy. And look at world now. I am not against scientifc progress, I am for it, but I want that the people, and the people we elected in a democratic election, can control it. I want that WE, the people, are well informed about it , consequences, etc. I don't want to leave the future in the hand of a bunch of Big Corporations out of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 Some questions for Guy Is cloned animals able to reproduce by theirself? I assume so. Why not? Are they strong enough for resisting at diseases? Again, why not? Do we have the right to know what we are eating? Yes. Who own the technology and the patents for clonig? I'm not sure why this is relevant. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I think there should at least be a label. Yes. Though I must say I find "clone-ophobia" to be strange. Guy For me, it is less about fearing something as objecting to it. The national trend in animal husbandry has veered off course in the past few years. Animals are raised in considerably more appalling conditions than they were 50 years ago, and they have to pump them full of antibiotics to make them survive. Has anyone called into question the need for cloning of animals for meat? Did cows and chickens lose their manuals for lovin'? Well, I guess being raised in a box saps your will to live... It's not about the animals' joy, but rather the unintended consequences of uber-industrialized agriculture. I'd say the animals' welfare and the safety of our foodchain are connected in a feedback loop. But yeah, corporate agribusiness is a bad thing, "uber" or not. E-coli, anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porcy62 Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 Some questions for Guy Is cloned animals able to reproduce by theirself? I assume so. Why not? Because in some cases, like the infamous 'Terminator seeds', cloned plants do not produce seed, so you have to buy it for every harvest, that means that if you, for any reasons, don't have money to buy them, you'll not have any harvest. This is not the case with 'natural' agriculture. Are they strong enough for resisting at diseases? Again, why not? Because nobody can foresee wich type of desease can occur to a cloned animal. AFIK cloned animals have a lack of immune defenses. Do we have the right to know what we are eating? Yes. Who own the technology and the patents for clonig? I'm not sure why this is relevant. Guy Is it relevant because, when most of the farming will be cloned, because it will be proved to be profitable in the short term, you'll have to pay some sort of hidden copyright to few big Corporation who have enough money to afford biotech. Anyway I didn't see any comments on my thoughts followin the questions. Should I assume that you don't agree with them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 Some questions for Guy Is cloned animals able to reproduce by theirself? I assume so. Why not? Because in some cases, like the infamous 'Terminator seeds', cloned plants do not produce seed, so you have to buy it for every harvest, that means that if you, for any reasons, don't have money to buy them, you'll not have any harvest. This is not the case with 'natural' agriculture. Don't seedless plants predate modern genetic engineering? Anyway, I assume that it will be harder to make "seedless" animals. Are they strong enough for resisting at diseases? Again, why not? Because nobody can foresee wich type of desease can occur to a cloned animal. AFIK cloned animals have a lack of immune defenses. I don't buy this. If the animals they are cloned from have immune defenses, then the cloned animals will as well. Who own the technology and the patents for clonig? I'm not sure why this is relevant. Guy Is it relevant because, when most of the farming will be cloned, because it will be proved to be profitable in the short term, you'll have to pay some sort of hidden copyright to few big Corporation who have enough money to afford biotech. Most farming today is done on an industrial scale -- this will not change. If cloned animals are more expensive than uncloned animals, then farmers will stick with the uncloned. Anyway I didn't see any comments on my thoughts followin the questions. Should I assume that you don't agree with them? I neither agreed nor disagreed. Or maybe a little of each. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porcy62 Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 One of the clone's results. The GM Bee The bees that feed on GM products don’t appreciate them. They are behind the times. They have not evolved. It’s difficult to keep up with the human race. Their lack of appreciation is such that after a bit, they die. But before that, they pass on the message. And on GM fields, bees are no longer to be seen. The bees, before dying produce GM honey. We eat GM honey without knowing it. Will it do us any good? We will only know by dying. That’s the good thing about GM. It’s always a surprise. How do the beekeepers find out that their bees go over the boundary into GM fields? The bees move around without taking precautions. They go from one flower to another. From one GM cultivation to another GM cultivation. Even in the experimental ones. With GM products that have not yet been approved. The bees are against progress. Those that don’t adapt are lost. And don’t get quoted on the Stock Exchange. The bees are an economic resource but they don’t produce bonds. A bee hive can contain up to 50,000 bees. In Europe there are thousands of millions of bees. Every time that a bee goes out from the beehive it pollinates a hundred flowers. The effort delivered by the bees in pollination is worth a few thousand million Euros in salary in the European Union. But the value of pollination cannot be measured. Without the bees, hundreds of plants would die. Does anyone think they are able to do this work? Perhaps with new GM products from the multinationals that always reassure us about our future and about the value of their shares? We have become unconscious guinea pigs of by-products of GM products. ... The United States have more than half the GM cultivations in the world. Almost 50 million hectares out of 90 million. To overcome world hunger. They say. Or perhaps it’s for export, like democracy. P.S. In the United States for reasons connected with pesticides, environmental changes and GM, the population of native wild bees has gone down by 90% in the last 50 years. The number of beehives has dropped by two thirds. http://www.beppegrillo.it/english.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted January 6, 2007 Report Share Posted January 6, 2007 It took me half the post to figure out that this wasn't about General Motors... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porcy62 Posted January 6, 2007 Report Share Posted January 6, 2007 It took me half the post to figure out that this wasn't about General Motors... Sorry, it wasn't my translation. What should I have used for 'Genetically modified organism'? Is GMO a correct acronimous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted January 6, 2007 Report Share Posted January 6, 2007 I don't have a problem with eating it (in case anybody wants to know ) but truth in advertising is important, just like any other food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porcy62 Posted January 6, 2007 Report Share Posted January 6, 2007 (edited) I don't have a problem with eating it (in case anybody wants to know ) but truth in advertising is important, just like any other food. Your choice, unless you're a bee and you make honey, in that case I would like to be informed. Edited January 6, 2007 by porcy62 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.