Debate and Discussion

clone food
herio at 2:27AM, July 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 702
joined: 1-7-2006
oh know there going to eat dolly the sheep



Milk and meat products from cloned cattle, pigs and goats are safe for consumers to eat, according to a Food and Drug Administration document obtained by Reuters Thursday.
The FDA findings bring the agency one step closer to determining whether to allow the commercialization of food from cloned animals. A final policy decision is expected next year.
Cloned animals – which are genetically identical – are attractive to the industry because ranchers are able to keep their favorite livestock, providing better tasting meat and more milk and eggs.
“Edible products from normal, healthy clones or their progeny do not appear to pose increased food consumption risk,” said the 12-page executive summary of an FDA report. A copy of the report was obtained from an industry source.
The FDA is expected to release the executive summary of the new report on Friday. The entire report will be released at a later date.
The nascent food cloning industry, which includes companies such as ViaGen, owned by Exeter Life Sciences, and Cyagra, is eagerly awaiting the FDA's decision on commercialization. Smithfield Foods, the top U.S. pork producer, has a technology development contract with ViaGen.
Industry officials hope the FDA will make a decision on commercialization quickly as some companies have had difficulty raising funds from investors because of the uncertainty surrounding the issue.
An FDA spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
Biotech companies clone animals by taking the nuclei of cells from adults and fusing them into other egg cells from which the nuclei have been extracted. Livestock have already been cloned for sale to producers.
Some consumer groups have urged the FDA to address the moral and ethical concerns of animal cloning before approving its commercialization.
If the FDA does allow it, grocery stores are most likely to sell meat and milk from the offspring of cloned animals, the agency said. Their parents will probably not be slaughtered for food because of their high price tag.
A cloned calf can sell for as much as $82,000. An average calf sells for less than $1,000.
The FDA said cloned cattle between six and 18 months of age are “virtually indistinguishable” from their conventional parents, and can give birth to healthy offspring.
The FDA report does raise some concerns about cloned animals immediately after birth. Many of the young animals are susceptible to under-developed respiratory and cardiovascular systems, it said.
But as a food safety issue, the agency said the risk was small. “Given that live neonatal clones are unlikely to enter the food supply, they pose an extremely limited risk for consumption as food,” the document said.
With most of the scientific research focusing on cloned cattle, the FDA said it had the most confidence that food products from cattle were safe. The level of certainty is highest for bovine clones, followed in decreasing order of certainty, by pig, goat and sheep clones, the report said.
The report did not address whether these food products should carry a special label alerting consumers that they are derived from cloned animals. FDA officials have said food from cloned animals would not be labeled if there were no significant health risks.
Earlier this year, Japan said it found no abnormalities in meat or milk from cloned animals, but called for creation of a system to deal with problems that might arise.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/10/61038


last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
Aurora Moon at 1:42PM, July 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I personally have no problem with cloned food products, or those engineered food products.

Think about it: an engineered or cloned Tomato would definitely be 50 times more healthier than a natural grown food product because farmers tend to spray pesticides and such on their stuff in order to keep it from being eaten by pests like bugs and the like.

But with cloned stuff you wouldn't need to worry about that, and therefore you wouldn't use any pesticides or harmful chemicals on it and then having to try to wash it all off throughly.

it'd proably be more plumper and more delicous too, just how it doesn't have to put up with the weather giving them diffculites and such.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Ocka at 3:18PM, July 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 162
joined: 3-4-2007
I see no problem, meat's meat. However I feel sorry for the cloned cows, as soon as thier born, they know they are going to become my steak. (Get in ma belly!)

Now if the cloned food products someone get smart and start to revolt (Real Attack of the Clones), then I have a BIG problem with it >.>

last edited on July 14, 2011 2:20PM
ozoneocean at 4:59PM, July 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,067
joined: 1-2-2004
Yeah… the products of stupid food Tech that's no more than 50 years old at the oldest and about 2 to 3 at the youngest VS food tech thousands of years old? Because that's what it is. I'm sorry, but even 50 years testing isn't enough to be sure of this stuff. The changes made are PRETTY bloody fundamental, this isn't selective breeding here people, this is food tech that could possibly lead to new genetic diseases, cancers and even the extermination of certain crops and species if it goes wrong, which it does.

Besides, the “no pesticides” argument has proved fatuous! lol!
The problem is that new pests just move in and what can happen is that the farmers have to use MORE pesticide to protect their more expensive investment- in the GM crop.

Cloned meat: Unethical and possibly very bad for us. Slow down on the science here, it hasn't actually helped farmers as much as is claimed… In fact farmers do worse of the land now than ever before.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
StaceyMontgomery at 5:16PM, July 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I'm with Ozoneocean.

From what I've seen, cloned animals are not as healthy as their “parents” - and we don't seem to know why. We have to differentiate from the basic meaning of the word “clone” and the specific, rather early cloning technologies we are actually using.

Besides, these cloned foods don't pop out of test tubes. Cloned plants still need to grow in soil, they still get pesticides. Cloned sheep still need to eat food and grow up and get fat. They aren't making vat-grown food yet (eventually, but not yet).

The real trick here is that they don't want to have to put “cloned” on their labels, because cautious folks like Ozoneocean and I won't eat them. I say, let us make our own choices. Of course, the foodcorps say No no, you can trust us.

They should not be allowed to treat us like sheep.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Rori at 7:16PM, July 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 471
joined: 12-3-2006
While it's true that many species reproduce “clones” in nature, I believe (it was a long time ago that I read this) those species with longer lifespans are more prone to extinction. So I don't really see the benefit, esp. since the animals are expensive and, well, often sickly.

I can't say I really see the problem with cloning plants, though I can't think of why you would want to.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:11PM
Cthulhu at 8:19PM, July 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,095
joined: 4-18-2006
Cthulhu fails to see the problem here.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:57AM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 8:21PM, July 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Nobody's going to pay that much for a cow just because it's a clone.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
wyldflowa at 1:02PM, July 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 142
joined: 4-20-2006
I think the gene pools in large-scale herds of animals for farming are already small enough without them comprising of animals that are genetically identical. If a new virus strain was to be introduced into these herds it would spread like wildfire and potentially destroy the whole farming industry. However modified and brilliant these animals are they would still have the same weaknesses and knowing mother nature she'll find a way to exploit them. Just look at the outbreaks of mad cow disease and bird flu - these diseases were spread rapidly thanks to large-scale farming enterprises that cramp together genetically similar animals on a massive level to feed our ever-consuming population… if all the animals were clones they'd be even more susceptible to these sorts of diseases as there would be no genetic variation between them~!

Plus, like people have said, clones aren't generally that healthy and they're expensive and, I've heard, difficult to make. And they may say it's safe now but what about years and years down the line after it's been in circulation? No, I just don't trust it… :/

Atom Apple
Nobody's going to pay that much for a cow just because it's a clone.
They're not paying for it because it's a clone - they're paying for it because it would be a clone of an exceptional animal of that breed. It might have the tastiest meat or the highest yeild of milk… this animal can then be used to breed more animals that will inherit it's traits. In short, the farmer would make lots of money from the offspring of that animal because they'd have such awesome meat/milk/whatever~ Think of someone buying a stud racing horse for lots of money with the intent of breeding it to create more racing horses~ it's like that, just with meat…
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:52PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 5:09PM, July 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Well then high class people can do whatever they want, I'm fine with a good McDonald's burger.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Hawk at 6:35PM, July 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I don't know enough about the positive and negative effects of the cloning, but if a cloned beef steak were placed in front of me, I'd eat it and not worry a bit.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
ozoneocean at 3:48AM, July 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,067
joined: 1-2-2004
Hawk
I don't know enough about the positive and negative effects of the cloning, but if a cloned beef steak were placed in front of me, I'd eat it and not worry a bit.
And I think that's the main problem. Big producers take advantage of consumer ignorance and naivete. I mean, we don't even think whether our food might be poisoned or not because we trust food regulators to sort all this out for us and make it safe, and this system works of usually but there are lots of breakdowns. The mad cow problem was one, but there are others. The trouble in this case is that regulators are being lobbied, bribed and bullied by very big business to accept these practices.

And make NO mistake, they're not being pioneered by “science” for our benefit (when did you people grow up? the 50s?!!), they're being developed by massive corporate interests, GM, Chemical, and drug companies that invest billions to hopefully make hundreds of billions. And that's NOT “conspiracy” either, anyone who counter-claims that is an inveterate moron, it's the actual business practise; it's not hidden in any way, you can EASILY find out about it if you like. The only voices in favour are those of the ignorant, lobbied politicians with stars in their eyes, and paid scientists who are speaking up for their employers and primary funders like good employees.

And please quit with the “science is good” Malarkey… The 50's are over. Not all scientific “advances” are really advances, as nuclear power has shown, and especially when they're simply tools of big business.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
MrRiot at 2:36PM, July 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 408
joined: 8-20-2006
Can I BBQ it? Then it'll work for me!

Visit my comic: THE PATH: Lovecraftian Horror meets Arthurian Legend
Visit my website: Old Dying Kitty
Proud Co-Founder/Member of Mediocre Militia
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:08PM
MrRiot at 2:38PM, July 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 408
joined: 8-20-2006
ozoneocean
And make NO mistake, they're not being pioneered by “science” for our benefit (when did you people grow up? the 50s?!!)

And please quit with the “science is good” Malarkey… The 50's are over. Not all scientific “advances” are really advances, as nuclear power has shown, and especially when they're simply tools of big business.

Ah, the 50's. That's when science was REALLY science! With it's death rays, and houses of tomorrow. Where are my flying cars and jet-packs, huh?

Visit my comic: THE PATH: Lovecraftian Horror meets Arthurian Legend
Visit my website: Old Dying Kitty
Proud Co-Founder/Member of Mediocre Militia
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:08PM
Mr Chappers at 3:07PM, July 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 148
joined: 3-27-2007
MrRiot
Can I BBQ it? Then it'll work for me!

Thats my opinion summed up there.

Read the Author, its good i promise.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:07PM
TnTComic at 4:14AM, July 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
ozoneocean
And I think that's the main problem. Big producers take advantage of consumer ignorance and naivete. I mean, we don't even think whether our food might be poisoned or not because we trust food regulators to sort all this out for us and make it safe

How is that a problem? The alternative is paranoia and a reversion to a culture wherein we all are farmers, since we can't trust anyone else to produce our food. Also, I don't see how the producers are taking advantage of “ignorance and naivete”, when they have to jump through hoops to make the regulators happy. Really, I don't see much of a cogent point to what you're saying, other than a fairly obvious paranoia toward food producers.



ozoneocean
And make NO mistake, they're not being pioneered by “science” for our benefit (when did you people grow up? the 50s?!!)…

they're being developed by massive corporate interests, GM, Chemical, and drug companies that invest billions to hopefully make hundreds of billions….

And that's NOT “conspiracy” either, anyone who counter-claims that is an inveterate moron…

The only voices in favour are those of the ignorant, lobbied politicians with stars in their eyes, and paid scientists who are speaking up for their employers and primary funders like good employees….

And please quit with the “science is good” Malarkey… The 50's are over. Not all scientific “advances” are really advances, as nuclear power has shown, and especially when they're simply tools of big business.

Okay, well there we go. I'd love to adopt your tone and provide counter claims, but the last time I did that you gave me a bunch of warnings.

I completely disagree with your view point. I suppose that makes me an inveterage moron, an ignorant stars-in-the-eyes 50's era jackass who's been duped by polititians, lobbyists and scientists. They have done an amazing job at convincing me that a clone is the same as an identical twin. They have completely fooled me into believing that 2 animals with identical DNA are exactly the same as human identical twins, who I suppose we should treat as some abomination of science. But what do I know, since i'm clearly a big idiot.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
ozoneocean at 4:39AM, July 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,067
joined: 1-2-2004
I gave you warnings because you deliberately touched on a very sore point with Amy and criticised her when I told everyone not to; effectively joining in with and encouraging a flame war :)
As an Administrator and a moderator of the forums that is my job.

As for this: I say that people who claim it's a conspiracy that big business is driving the moves to have cloned food and GM crops declared fit for human consumption are inveterate morons. No others. I say this for one main reason: it denies open fact and shows a great deal of ignorance. But no one here is claiming that, are they?

As for your point about clones being identical twins and therefore harmless… Yes indeed, very 50's era of you! lol!
Reading too many Scifi novels maybe? The thing is that the world doesn't work the way dictionary definitions do. Real cloning is a lot more problematic. People have discussed why in their posts here, I could outline all those reasons in detail but I'd just be repeating what others have said, maybe try reading their posts? Just quickly here are two biggies; many errors in the process create defective “clones”; Dramatically reduces the gene pool making species extremely vulnerable to new disease and hidden inherited conditions.

Lastly, the point about us all needing to be farmers if we cant trust our food regulators. Where do you get that? I say the food regulators are being lobbied by unscrupulous profit-hungry people, that doesn't mean that you just give up on it! By no means! In a democratic system if means people should be AWARE of that fact (like they were with Mad Cow) and work to counteract this lobbying. As for others who are more apathetic, it means that just because a food standards agency says something is ok, they should be aware that this isn't always the case, and there are reasons other than simple food safety that influence such agencies. ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
TnTComic at 4:46AM, July 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Sorry, but i'm not going to engage in a discussion in which you are openly hostile to other points of view while saying its your job to stop flame wars. It can't end well.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
ozoneocean at 5:06AM, July 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,067
joined: 1-2-2004
This is a debate and discussion forum, the point is to examine ideas and put forth points a view. You defend your own point of view, learn from others if you think they've said something useful or are convinced by them, or point out the errors you see in what they say. I'm sorry that you haven't got the hang of how things work here or are too intimidated to join in the rough and tumble of the debate and discussion process. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
Hyptosis at 4:52PM, July 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 130
joined: 5-11-2006
Well, I'm pretty disgusted by it all. But I don't support the dairy or meat industry anyway so my point would be moot.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:53PM
Hawk at 11:04PM, July 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Does that mean you never eat beef, milk, or cheese?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
neohobo at 10:27AM, July 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 46
joined: 6-27-2007
cloned food i think is a good idea, solves the problem of cows emitting methane gases
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
StaceyMontgomery at 2:09PM, July 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
Um, cloned cows still emit methane. Clones are just like the original - but younger - and not as healthy.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
TnTComic at 2:39PM, July 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
StaceyMontgomery
Clones are just like the original - but younger - and not as healthy.

This is news to me. Why would a clone be weaker? They're genetically identical.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
ozoneocean at 3:03PM, July 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,067
joined: 1-2-2004
TnTComic
StaceyMontgomery
Clones are just like the original - but younger - and not as healthy.
This is news to me. Why would a clone be weaker? They're genetically identical.
This is because the real world process doesn't work like it does in Scifi or the dictionary definition of the word. It's like Time travel: a fantastic idea because it means you can see the future and the past! But it doesn't actually work… yet… All you can do is move along into the future at the same pace as everyone else.
Reality and the magical SciFi ideal are usually pretty separate ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
TnTComic at 3:46PM, July 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
ozoneocean
TnTComic
StaceyMontgomery
Clones are just like the original - but younger - and not as healthy.
This is news to me. Why would a clone be weaker? They're genetically identical.
This is because the real world process doesn't work like it does in Scifi or the dictionary definition of the word. It's like Time travel: a fantastic idea because it means you can see the future and the past! But it doesn't actually work… yet… All you can do is move along into the future at the same pace as everyone else.
Reality and the magical SciFi ideal are usually pretty separate ;)

Please, don't assume i'm stupid, its getting annoying.

My understanding of the process is that they fertilized eggs with a genetic code that they procured from an existing animal, and that egg grew to adult age. I'm under no misconception of a science fiction wherein the clone grows at an astronomical rate. My question is, what is the difference between a clone and a twin? Genetically they are identical, why would one be weaker?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
ozoneocean at 4:09PM, July 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,067
joined: 1-2-2004
TnTComic
My question is, what is the difference between a clone and a twin? Genetically they are identical, why would one be weaker?
Ugh! Because the process doesn't work like that! That's what I'm saying… Haven't you read about actual cloning? The process isn't perfect, material is lost etc… AH whatever, do some reading about the examples that have been produced so far. I haven't got time.

Besides, even if they do ever get it to work perfectly, there's still the problem dramatically reducing the gene pool. We've seen what happens when this has been done with crops, endangered species etc. The susceptibility to disease increases exponentially with the prospect of the entire species being eradicated in short order (or the diseases being transferred onto humans). Then there's the risk of the genetic errors made by the cloning process causing further problems besides all the ones seen so far, and these causing problems in humans the way CJD did. Ah, but these are concerns for people that are a little more aware of the cases. ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
StaceyMontgomery at 4:42PM, July 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
Well, I may have overstated the point. The health of cloned animals, so far, seems a bit in question. There were many who thought that Dolly the sheep suffered from accelerated aging - though her creators denied this. Some cloned cows also seemed to die young and suffer from abnormal changes in growth.

The idea here is that our cloning procedures, imperfect as they are, are screwing up the process somehow. I consider the whole thing to be a bit up in the air. I assume that we will, eventually master the art of cloning. I'm just not sure we've done it yet. Until we've done it, i prefer not to eat anything that results from that process. Hey, I could be totally wrong here - but why take chances? if there's something odd about cloned animals - and we don;'t know what it is - how do we know the food is safe?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
TnTComic at 4:48PM, July 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
So if they could do it perfectly, what's the problem? If we decided that cows today are perfect, and we cloned them for however long we like, what's the problem? Its just the same cow over and over again.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
ozoneocean at 5:32PM, July 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,067
joined: 1-2-2004
…I believe the second paragraph of my last post here addressed that ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved