Cloned Meat good for you???

[rallytbk]

29 December 2006

By LIBBY QUAID, AP Food and Farm Writer 50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Meat and milk from cloned animals may not appear in supermarkets for years despite being deemed by the government as safe to eat. But don't be surprised if "clone-free" labels appear sooner. More

What the hell is happening in this world, that we have to be feed cloned food... are we that far gone that we need a food substitute (gene approved and enhanced cloned meat) and see that it is not really necessary. Also what does it have to say about farm raised and breed food animals? Organic and heirloom vegetables started the ôback to basics trendö (no chemicals, no gene modifications)à
Now we have to worry about eating real meat?

soylent green here we come!

[Dr Maturin]

Organic food products are a bust, now only purchased by the trendy and elite. When it comes to fruits and vegetables, whole crops of are lost.

And there will come a time when cloned meat will be in everyone's diet.

[Jan]

Now we have to worry about eating real meat?

Why would anybody consider cloned animals any different from naturally concieved ones? It's no less 'real' than what we're eating now. The cloned animals will have no more or less of a life than their sexually concieved brethern. Unless you have some scientifically researched facts to indicate otherwise?

Animals have been being bred for certain characteristics since animals were first domesticated. Plants have been hybridized to enhance or even to develop characteristics. Is this unnatural? If so, it's many generations too late to start complaining.

Now, on the topic of 'free range' meat, I'm a fan. I'll willingly spend a fair amount more for meat and poultry that has been fed naturally and allowed to graze or feed however their nature dictates. It simply tastes better. Much better.

Jan

[Karachi Vyce]

Why would anybody consider cloned animals any different from naturally concieved ones? It's no less 'real' than what we're eating now. The cloned animals will have no more or less of a life than their sexually concieved brethern. Unless you have some scientifically researched facts to indicate otherwise?

I agree. I think that people hear the word "cloned" and think that these animals are some sort of genetically engineered monster animals. Not at all. The cloning that they're doing is really more just like fancy artificial insemination. I'm sort of simplifying things a bit, but really, the only real difference is that you're winding up with an animal that's genetically identical to the one you took the genetic source material from, rather than the offspring of two different animals.

Eating cloned meat isn't even as questionable a practice, IMO, as eating, say, genetically modified corn or crops.

[rallytbk]

I recently had a debate about the Matrix, Soylent Green and realityà Some of the comments from that movie do make the mind think.

CypherÆs comment ôI know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.ö

Is a reason why the debate of cloned meat and gene modified vegetables is on my lipsà Before, it was debated on how things are supposed to taste (flavor added, color added, vitamins added), then how it, if in fact how it was affecting usà food allergies, food ailments, growth hormones and over developed pre-teens, etc. While America suffers from obesity, debating the pros and cons of Genetically Engineered Food should not be taken lightly.

Remember that episode of "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century": The Dorian Secret

Dorian ceremonial face masks.
Quote: Koldar, meekly telling Buck to "Imagine, Captain, every face you see a mirror image of your own..."

THEY ARE ALL CLONES!!! (Hope I didnÆt spoil the ending for you, lol)

[Jan]

I'm still not understanding your argument. What exact, factual evidence do you have that a cloned cow will not be an exact duplicate (genetically speaking) of the parent? Not fiction, not scare stories, facts.

You ignore the fact that we've *been* genetically engineering food for generations by selective breeding and planting techniques. Technically, if all they're talking about is straght cloning, then if the donor animal is fine, so should the clone.

Yeah, I remember that Buck Rogers episode. <shrug> All my meat and poultry looks alike when I get it anyway. All cut up into the cuts and portions that I'm interested in buying.

If you want to debate pros and cons, I'd be happy to do so. But what are the facts of the cons you're seeing? We can't debate anything basing arguments on stories. If there aren't any facts, there can't be a debate because it's all scare stories.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

The food we eat isn't the cause of this supposed obesity epidemic; it's the amount that some people eat. That moron who made that "Supersize Me!" movie ate McDonald's all the time with no exercise. What the fuck did he think was going to happen? I eat McDonald's no less than eight times per week and I look great. I exercise, I lift weights, I eat all of my meals in moderation and most importantly, I know my own limits. People need to be the judge of their own diet. The nature of my metabolism dictates that I can eat a double Quarter Pounder, 10-piece Chicken McNuggets, large fries, and a large Diet Coke and not have to worry too much. With other people, that's three meals. But they still eat two more. If someone wants to eat that much past their personal limit, then let them. They will pay the consequences.

Besides, I'd rather be obese than starving in a third world country. I think the media's interest in this obesity problem in America is in part driven by a guilt over us having so much food while others starve.

Regarding the "cloning": If they can clone the perfect angus over and over again, then I'm all for it.

[rallytbk]

And there will come a time when cloned meat will be in everyone's diet.

And no one is afraid of that? I tasted real tap Maple syrup recently, could not stomach it... too sweet. Store bought generic was what I was accustom to, sad really.

I'm sort of simplifying things a bit, but really, the only real difference is that you're winding up with an animal that's genetically identical to the one you took the genetic source material from, rather than the offspring of two different animals.

Not as nature intended, but delicious. Or is ità What are we really eating?

If there aren't any facts, there can't be a debate because it's all scare stories.

I guess discuss would have been the better word to useà I just donÆt understand the need to clone meat unless there is contaminated stock mixing with the good. Deformities in nature is expected over a certain period of time, but I just think that more testing and at least a few more years of research (seeing what modified grains and/or environments does to clones) is needed to both know for sure that cloned stock and what their fed doesnÆt change their molecular structure or change DNA in humans. You guys can debate the pros and cons of eating clonesà I would like to discuss why? (Scare stories to be use for ôwhat ifö) it is just too bizarre any way you look at it.

(apples that taste like bananas and bananas that taste like grapes?)

[Jan]

You guys can debate the pros and cons of eating clonesà I would like to discuss why? (Scare stories to be use for ôwhat ifö) it is just too bizarre any way you look at it.

(apples that taste like bananas and bananas that taste like grapes?)

Sorry, I don't see that it's outrageous or bizaare at all.

You might as well ask why use artificial insemination instead of natural breeding? Because there's a major economic reason for doing so. If cloning becomes widespread, it'll be because there's an economic reason, no need to look further.

If tests have shown that the meat from a clone is indistinguishable from a naturally concieved animal (as I've read is what the FDA has said), there's no reason to assume that any change in molecular structure would (of even *could*) occur.

Jan

[Karachi Vyce]

And no one is afraid of that?

No.

Genetic modification of HUMANS should be the future. It would be if people weren't so goddamn hung up on the religious conflicts of doing genetic research.

[WorkerCaste]

I think the "why" of cloned animals is pretty straight forward and pretty much what Jan indicated -- economic advantages. If you have a cow that produces more milk than most of the other cows, what farmer wouldn't want 20 of those? Especially if the cow happened to have a strong immune system and thus greater hardiness. Likewise consistency in the grade and quantity of meat from a meat animal. Of course, cloning is too expensive at this point to really clone a cow for milk or a steer for beef. CHances of os drinking milk or eating beef directly from a cloned animal will remain very small for a long time. Instead, you can use cloning to create good breeders. Animals that are likely to produce valuable offspring. It's what's done now. You find a good breeding animal and use it as much as possible. The problem is that proven good breeders are a scarce commodity. Cloning those animals can reduce the scarcity. When bying a clone of a proven breader becomes less expensive than buying the breeder itself, you'll have the econimoc gains necessary to drive the practice.

rallybtk, in fairness the thread is titled "Cloned meat good for you???" and you mentioned comparisons to organic, grain-fed etc. in your first post. You could still raise cloned animals organically.

[rallytbk]

Sorry, I don't see that it's outrageous or bizaare at all.

No.

Genetic modification of HUMANS should be the future. It would be if people weren't so goddamn hung up on the religious conflicts of doing genetic research.

If you have a cow that produces more milk than most of the other cows, what farmer wouldn't want 20 of those?

Read
Ok, while a lot of people are not afraid of cloned meat per sayà Does anybody see the big picture?

Do you think it is right for corporations to control the patents of the food we eat? Or even ourselves? To filter out deformities, variations and undesirable traits, in both animals and humans? It all scares me and no one sees it comingà

It is already happening:

Reminds me of that episode:
The Twilight Zone
Number Twelve Looks Just Like You

A young woman resists pressure to be transformed into a state-controlled image of flawless beauty.

[Jan]

Do you think it is right for corporations to control the patents of the food we eat?

I think it's right that the people who do the R&D on these things have the right to the profits from their research and development for the limited time that patents allow. As it's always been. It's not as if this is anything new.

Or even ourselves? To filter out deformities, variations and undesirable traits, in both animals and humans? It all scares me and no one sees it comingà

Granted, at some point there's the question of who gets to determine what's a deformity or undesireable trait. I doubt we'll be at the point of being able to select for anything too specific for quite some time, though. Being able to select out of birth defects or even heart disease is vastly different from selecting for blue eyed 'pure Aryan' types.

A young woman resists pressure to be transformed into a state-controlled image of flawless beauty.

Sorry, I still think this is being alarmist way too early.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

Read
Ok, while a lot of people are not afraid of cloned meat per sayà Does anybody see the big picture?

Do you think it is right for corporations to control the patents of the food we eat? Or even ourselves? To filter out deformities, variations and undesirable traits, in both animals and humans? It all scares me and no one sees it comingà

It is already happening:

Reminds me of that episode:
The Twilight Zone
Number Twelve Looks Just Like You

A young woman resists pressure to be transformed into a state-controlled image of flawless beauty.

There is a slight difference. An animal that occurred naturally that produced more milk could subsequently be cloned. I would think that neither animal could be patented per se, but the agency doing the cloning would likely need to pay a royalty to the scientists that perfected the process. In all likelihood these various things will eventually be combined -- controlled breeding, gene therapy/splicing, and cloning -- so there's no doubt the subject relates. It just wasn't quite what I was commenting on. I can't say I'm always confortable these days with what can be patented. I'm all for rewarding inventors but often things seem a little broad. It certainly gets hazy when you're talking about living organisms. Gaining a patent on the process of creating a cancer-friendly rodent is, to me, clearly understandable. Gaining it on the animal itself such that no one else can produce them through independent means without paying a royalty doesn't seem right.

All that said, when you get to doing these things in humans it's a whole different world. Often the "slippery slope" argument is invoked, but we have a whole raft of legal precedent that says we know the difference between man and the "beasts." Right or wrong, it certainly can be distinguished from a legal perspective. And as far as gene therapy in humans, particularly in selecting a disability, I am somewhat uncomfortable with that. But given the amount of discussion world wide, I don't think it's quite fair to say that "no one sees it coming." There's a lively debate and I think that's healthy. Let's face it, from the time we developed higher intelligence we've been tinkering with ourselves and our environment. It doesn't always work out quite the way we planned, but it has happened and will undoubtedly keep happening. It's in our nature and as our knowledge grows we can impact more and more things. Trying to shut something down when it's dangerous has never worked in the past (and I definitely don't mean to imply that that is your position -- just proceeding down one obvious path ). Public debate, scientific debate, industry debate and monitoring all contribute to helping us avoid pitfalls. Again, not perfect, but then again nothing is. In this case the new animals have been studied by the FDA and found to be indistinguishable from nature, so monitoring is in place and there's plenty of evidence of debate.

[Harrdy]

rallytbk: To filter out deformities, variations and undesirable traits, in both animals and humans? It all scares me and no one sees it coming...

Well, some people see it coming, but it doesn't help to run in circles. At the end the consumer has the power which products will sell. All we need is a good labeling system and then we can decide what food we want to buy (or can afford to buy, but that's another problem...)

About the consequences of genetic manipulation in a human society you can watch Gattaca. It is a little dystropic (sp?) but very rewarding. Especially the night swimming scene is deeply human and gives one hope. I don't want to spoil the movie, so I stop here... 8-)

Jan: I think it's right that the people who do the R&D on these things have the right to the profits from their research and development for the limited time that patents allow. As it's always been. It's not as if this is anything new.

So what about making the offspring incapable of natural reproduction? It would make sense, because when the farmer can use naturally reproduction then the companies wouldn't get their share of money... but what about the long term view, then?

Jan: Granted, at some point there's the question of who gets to determine what's a deformity or undesireable trait.

Who is he who can make such a decicion? See Gattaca, that is the kind of society which would be *possible* (It is not the way it must happen, but very likely).

Jan: Sorry, I still think this is being alarmist way too early.

Yes, but I think the problem will come from a quite different part. The parents will like to have a "better" child, one which is able to be stronger, healthier and brighter. There could be a big gap in our civilization if only the rich can afford to make their childs "better".

Remember, the whole Idea of the "Uebermensch" is far from dead, social darwinism is alive and kicking, today...

PeAcE