On January 15, the FDA announced it considered cloned meat and milk safe for human consumption. It also announced it would not require food labels specifying products were cloned or from cloned animals.
Pretty much everyone is squeamish about this, particularly liberal vegetarian types.
Many, if not most liberals, however, consider cloning humans for research and potential use for human cures just fine.
Another example of an upside down world.
[Cartoon by Tony Auth for the Philadelphia Enquirer]
Hahaha....MMMMMMM....cloned cow. Don't mind the tentacles, they taste just like chicken. :DPosted by: Lyssie at January 18, 2008 10:34 AM
"..would not require food labels specifying products were cloned .."
hmmm...I wonder why not? (hint of sarcasm)
*maybe the FDA can 'lead by example' by eating the cloned meat for a month?
I seem to remember Dolly, the sheep dying early due to complications...Posted by: RSD at January 18, 2008 11:21 AM
When your mom decided that your dad looked hot from the back she was practicing genetic engineering.
IVF children are no different than other children, and cloned animals are no different than other animals.
The method used for conception doesn't make a bit of difference.
Are identical twins dangerous because they share a genetic code?
"...and cloned animals are no different than other animals."
So Laura, do you know what caused Dolly, the cloned sheep, to die earlier than "normal" sheep?
Posted by: RSD
at January 18, 2008 12:59 PM
wish you knew a wee bit more about the science of cloning. I sure do not know much, but there seems to be an instability arising from the removal of a cell's DNA and replacing it with another DNA.
There seems to be a 'bond' between a natural cell (DNA + other organelles) making for a solid connection. In cloning (especially animals) this connection is much less solid.
By eating such meat do you also eat this fragility ... tendency to have arthritis/cancer/ ... ?Posted by: John McDonell at January 18, 2008 1:22 PM
So Laura, do you know what caused Dolly, the cloned sheep, to die earlier than "normal" sheep?
Posted by: RSD at January 18, 2008 12:59 PM
Because DNA programs variables like lifespan.
Sheep live about 7-8 years. Dolly received DNA from a 4-year-old sheep, and was - for want of better term - four years old when she was born.
(Thus the beauty of using "unprogrammed" pluropotent embryonic stem cells...)
That would be "pluripotent."
By eating such meat do you also eat this fragility ... tendency to have arthritis/cancer/ ... ?
You canot eat a genetic tendency anymore than you can eat yourself tall and blonde. (Trust me. I've searched for the "Heidi Klum" diet for years. Can't find it anywhere.)
RSD, Laura seems to have hit the nail on the head.
I remember talking about Dolly my freshmen year of high school. It seems theres a portion of DNA that very well could "countdown", i.e. can only be copied so many times to form selves. I would think that itd eventually possible (scarily enough) to know how long you have to live (naturally) simply by getting some sort of DNA analysis.
We are starting to cross from science fiction into science fact, scary huh?
Posted by: Dan
at January 18, 2008 2:35 PM
Anyways, DNA is DNA. Its a "program" that will form the same cells, muscles, protein, etc, including meat. If you copy something exactly, you will get an exact copy of the original. In this case, cloning an animal gives a clone (albeit, genetically "older", unless done at the correct time I would guess) of the animal, including the parts of it which we eat. It makes sense that it would not change the nutrients or taste any different, and would not hold any higher risks than the slab of meat that comes from the original.
Man, I bet that this will really piss you guys off.
They're making animal-human hybrid embryos for ESCR in UK now.Posted by: Erin at January 18, 2008 2:46 PM
Also, 'cloned' meat doesn't bother me at all. More steak for me! Mmm.Posted by: Erin at January 18, 2008 2:50 PM
at the very least, there should be some studies re. safety of consuming cloned meat ... if only to rule-out the transferring to another species a 'genetic tendency'/inherent-weakness. I had sheep fetal cell injections as an experiment. Many bright doctors wondered about my growing a sheep-skin on my chest. My sister thought is strange selling cow's liver that had cancerous tumors ... are humans susceptible to everyday cancer in meat? With the addition of cloned meat ... seems to be the logic used for GMO foods ... no need to test for safety and label differently .... that's right, there are no North American safety tests.
A Dr. Budgpaj(sp?) did some studies (in France) and found GMO foods not at all 'safe'. From my understanding, there have been NO safety tests have ever been done on cloned meat. Are you willing to not know?Posted by: John McDonell at January 18, 2008 2:55 PM
The FDA and the USDA is in bed with agribusiness. That is why they came up with the new USDA organic label that is less rigorous than the California code that real organic farmers use. That way the big business can compete in the organic business without having to meet the usual organic standards.
This is the same problem with antibiotics in food and lead in cans. I loved what California did. They said they could use lead in the cans so long as each can had a label on front in X sized letters telling consumers there was lead in the can. Of course the producers didn't want to do that. So they quit using lead.
Anyway, if someone wants to eat a cloned cow/chicken, that is one thing. Labeling standards allow people to choose what they want to eat. That is why there are Kosher labels, even though Kosher meat is not really nutritionally or materially different, just processed a little differently. But it matters to some people so they put it on the label.
The govt is bowing to big business by prohibiting the labeling of cloned and genetically modified food.
I don't think we need to keep secrets. Just tell consumers what it is and let them decide.Posted by: hippie at January 18, 2008 3:53 PM
A Dr. Budgpaj(sp?) did some studies (in France) and found GMO foods not at all 'safe'. From my understanding, there have been NO safety tests have ever been done on cloned meat. Are you willing to not know?
Posted by: John McDonell at January 18, 2008 2:55 PM
Could you tell us more about that Yellowstone volcano you mentioned that terrorists are going to trigger in order to blow America off the face of the planet?
I fear that WAY 'mo than cloned beef.
It's kind of ironic (always is) how it is the pro-"choice" crowd who doesn't have a problem with people not having the "choice" to know what is going into their body. They should be outraged that we aren't given the option to decide for ourselves.
Why shouldn't I have the right to be able to choose from cloned meat or regular meat when I go shopping? Should I not be considered smart enough to be able to decide whether I think I want to eat cloned meat or not? Now someone else has to do my thinking for me?
@Dan: You are correct, in my genetics class we discussed Dolly and basically what happens is that as an individual ages, their telomeres shorten and degrade due to all of the cellular replications. As telomeres shorten, the chromosome is less "protected" and more susceptible to degredation by cellular nucleases.
Though I think what Dolly was euthanized for was a degernative lung problem, and the telomere thingie is just a hypothesis.
@Erin: I agree, more steak is a good thing. :DPosted by: Rae at January 18, 2008 4:13 PM
Bethany- my issue is I don't see the POINT of labeling it. It's the SAME THING. Cloning something produces an exact replica. You're getting the same meat as if you were eating the cow that they got the DNA from. Cloning doesn't make the meat suddenly ridden with cancer or anything. I think it's kind of silly to assume that something cloned becomes 'evil meat'.Posted by: Erin at January 18, 2008 4:16 PM
Cloned meat? That's a little wierd. I also find it stupid to not have the meat labled as cloned or not. We have lables for organic, free range, or those kinds of meat. Why not for cloned?Posted by: Stephanie at January 18, 2008 4:17 PM
Stephanie- they would have to label the cloned meat as organic, free range, etc, because they will have to raise the cow in a certain way.Posted by: Erin at January 18, 2008 4:19 PM
I can see your point about cloned meat being the same, but I still find it a wierd idea. Maybe not so much when I'm eating the stuff. I guess I just need to get used to the idea. Mmmm...meat.
Bethany- my issue is I don't see the POINT of labeling it. It's the SAME THING. Cloning something produces an exact replica. You're getting the same meat as if you were eating the cow that they got the DNA from. Cloning doesn't make the meat suddenly ridden with cancer or anything. I think it's kind of silly to assume that something cloned becomes 'evil meat'.
But see, again...you're saying that simply because you do not have a problem with it, that I should just go along with it, and trust that your opinion is correct. My opinion is that it is potentially harmful to eat cloned meat. I could be right or wrong, but where does my "choice" come in here?Posted by: Bethany at January 18, 2008 4:20 PM
I can just see it now...
"Free range Organic Cloned Meat!" O_oPosted by: Stephanie at January 18, 2008 4:21 PM
Well, then I guess it should be labeled, Bethany. I'm just saying it doesn't matter to ME. I mean, it wouldn't matter to me if nothing was labeled kosher, because I don't eat kosher. But I guess that could upset people who do, you know?Posted by: Erin at January 18, 2008 4:23 PM
Is it that important to you to know how your beef was conceived?
Virtually all calves produced for commercial agriculture are launched by artificial insemination. Does that alarm you?Posted by: FetusFascist at January 18, 2008 4:25 PM
But kosher is different. Much different. There is nothing changed or any unnatural processes in kosher foods. And almost EVERYONE eats meat.
Not everyone eats kosher food, as you already mentioned. The only way that I could make absolutely sure that I don't eat cloned meat in this way, would be to just be a vegetarian, or go hunting. And I don't think either of them sound too appealing when I love meat and don't know much about hunting.
Thanks Erin, for understanding my point.Posted by: Bethany at January 18, 2008 4:29 PM
I think the point is, we know that artificial insemination does not result in people/cows/pigs/whatever that are abnormal or more cancer-ridden than the ones concieved the conventional way.
But cloning, that's a little wierd. What if something goes wrong during the process, you know? I think that's what people are scared of.
Personally, I wouldn't eat cloned meat until I knew for sure it was safe for the long term.Posted by: Stephanie at January 18, 2008 4:29 PM
Man, this whole conversation is making me crave a steak in the WORST way.
Bethany- then I do agree, it should be labeled. It just won't personally affect me if it isn't, so I'm not going to lobby to make them do it or anything, ya know?Posted by: Erin at January 18, 2008 4:30 PM
I've always been more of a chicken person. Steak, I like but it makes me feel too full, too fast. And there are other delicious things to eat on the table, and now that I've eaten steak I can't eat anything else.
Dangit, now I'm hungry. =(Posted by: Stephanie at January 18, 2008 4:36 PM
Posted by: Bethany
at January 18, 2008 4:36 PM
All thos willing to eat unlabelled cloned meat, pls report to the FDA for taste test.
Wonder who would sign up first?Posted by: rsd at January 18, 2008 4:47 PM
Ahhhh! No fair!
It's bad enough I'm on a diet trying to drop those pounds I gained eating to much rich food over Christmas, now I'm being taunted with steak...where will it end??Posted by: Erin at January 18, 2008 4:57 PM
@Erin and Dan,
the stuff I learned about cloning 'theory' was precisely as you have written. But for some unknown reason, cloned animals tend not to be as hardy as the originals and this is not from telemorase length. It is thought that the coupling of chemicals to a DNA in its own mileau is 'stronger'. Why this is so ... in practice ... is not known.
The only site that I read about this was www.cheniere.org . I read some recent pages and this seems to have been dropped ... why - don't know. http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/020804.htm
The original story had a Tesla-type device developed in cold-war USSR using energy as its weapon. The Japanese group cited are called Aum Shinrikyo. The Yellowstone Park is a super-volcano caldera.
It was proposed that input of this weapon's energy could trigger an eruption.
But kosher is different. Much different. There is nothing changed or any unnatural processes in kosher foods.
Posted by: Bethany at January 18, 2008 4:29
Kosher processing is different but the meat is the same.
My point is that the FDA and USDA should not be prohibiting the labeling of foods. Some producers want people to know thier products weren't produced in this or that way and they should have the freedom to market their products by telling how they were and were not processed, or produced etc, etc.
Why should the FDA or USDA prohibit such labeling?Posted by: Anonymous at January 18, 2008 9:10 PM
;-) I completely agree, Anonymous! :) You may have gotten my comments mixed up with Erin or Laura's.Posted by: Bethany at January 19, 2008 6:38 AM
Kosher means something has been prepared in a certain way (having prayers said over it...) so it's a religious thing...I wonder if, on religious/moral grounds, we could insist it be labeled. I am morally uncomfortable with cloning of any kind, because I know what the next step is...Posted by: Anonymous at January 19, 2008 6:39 AM
it's not that the FDA forbids full labeling (large agribusiness + trade), it seems highly selective in the labels it does demand. The 'farm' practices are anything but consumer/agricultural-worker friendly. For instance: I bought organic oat groats and only recently found out that these can be 'treated' with 500F temperatures, to stop the seeds from germinating. This is done to increase storage time = increase $-profits.Posted by: John McDonell at January 19, 2008 7:27 AM
There are many ongoing lawsuits by agribusiness to prohibit labeling of foods such as saying they are hormone, or antibiotic free.
These large businesses and groups absolutely want to keep organic and other farmers processors and producers from labeling and they want the FDA and USDA to prohibit certain labeling information,
Check out the organic consumers website for more info.Posted by: hippie at January 19, 2008 2:06 PM
it's not that the FDA forbids full labeling (large agribusiness + trade), it seems highly selective in the labels it does demand. The 'farm' practices are anything but consumer/agricultural-worker friendly. For instance: I bought organic oat groats and only recently found out that these can be 'treated' with 500F temperatures, to stop the seeds from germinating. This is done to increase storage time = increase $-profits.
Posted by: John McDonell at January 19, 2008 7:27 AM
Wouldn't a shorter storage life mean higher sales? If the product becomes inedible more quickly the consumer would have to replenish more often. Or quit buying the product altogether.Posted by: Sally at January 19, 2008 7:42 PM
never thought of it like that. Some grains like oats may (really do not know) just sprout in the spring ... just like onions. By doing this, they destroy an extremely great source of nutrition in sprouted grains.Posted by: John McDonell at January 19, 2008 9:40 PM
never thought of it like that. Some grains like oats may (really do not know) just sprout in the spring ... just like onions. By doing this, they destroy an extremely great source of nutrition in sprouted grains.
Posted by: John McDonell at January 19, 2008 9:40 PM
Wouldn't untreated packaged grains rot due to sprouting? Seems to me much nutritional grain would become inedible without being treated. Perhaps you should buy untreated grain only grown locally so that you may monitor it's germination, I guess that it would just be too sad if you didn't live in an area conductive to growing your favorite sprouting grain.Posted by: Sally at January 20, 2008 9:19 PM
while there is a problem with mold, most of these fertile/active grains seem fine if packaged in heavy paper of 1-3lbs.
decades ago one of the main leaders of present-day orientation to wholesome eating was Anne Wigmore. Her area of expertise was sprouting/eating plants. The mineral content of sprouted seeds can exceed 40X ...
Her books are easy-to-read and short. And can likely be found at any health-food-store ... inexpensive too! Here's a Canadian site that speciallizes here http://www.sproutmaster.com/ .Posted by: John McDonell at January 21, 2008 7:17 AM
RSD: I seem to remember Dolly, the sheep, dying early due to complications.
I saw a cartoon of Dolly at the gates of Heaven, and a big angel Dog is reading from a book, saying, "Strange - we already seem to have a Dolly...."
Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2008 8:35 AM
RSD: All those willing to eat unlabelled cloned meat, please report to the FDA for taste test. Wonder who would sign up first?
This is a ploy to idnetify human clones.
If you are a clone yourself, cloned meat tastes better.Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2008 8:41 AM