Would you eat meat from cloned animals?

[sublime]

I read an article in the paper today stating that the FDA agrees that cloned animals(pigs, sheep, cows) are fit for human comsumption, and are now just deciding if they should put labels on the meat and milk products stating they came from a cloned animal. I can't say I would never buy meat from a clone, but I do feel weird at the thought of it. What worries me is this, would the price of uncloned meat and dairy go up and end up being unaffordable like organic, which I prefer? Will I end up having no choice but to eat it because I can't affort meat that hasn't been cloned? What do you all think and what would you do?

[potatofree]

*puttin' on flame-proof undies*

Meat is meat.

[cagey_coot]

there is no difference - meat is meat. what they should do is label what the cows, hogs or whatever have been fed since birth. That would be more beneficial than knowing that the animal was an exact duplicate of its parent.....

[sublime]

there is no difference - meat is meat. what they should do is label what the cows, hogs or whatever have been fed since birth. That would be more beneficial than knowing that the animal was an exact duplicate of its parent.....
This I agee with, I'm more concerned with what the cow ingested than if its cloned I think. As I said, I prefer organic but cannot afford it :lol: :)

[liddie01]

since they aren't required to tell us if its cloned or not I suppose I wouldn't know, although I get most of my meats from an amish butcher, I don't think he will be using cloning anytime soon.

[sublime]

since they aren't required to tell us if its cloned or not I suppose I wouldn't know, although I get most of my meats from an amish butcher, I don't think he will be using cloning anytime soon.
They are deciding now if they need to tell us. They haven't decided yet :)

[KvonM]

i wouldn't care how the animal got conceived. i mean, think about it... are test-tube babies somehow not human because they were concieved in a plastic dish? the fact that they're cloned wouldn't matter to me at all... especially not if it somehow brings down the overall price of meat.

[KvonM]

They are deciding now if they need to tell us. They haven't decided yet :)

i think we all know that if they decided it didn't need to be labeled, half a dozen activist groups would be protesting over it and file lawsuits. i think they'll label it and cover their collective butts.

[ProfGumby]

They are deciding now if they need to tell us. They haven't decided yet :)

I think it is a waste of taxpayer monies at this point to even be worrying about it. Cloning is not a viable option at this point as ALL clones have shorter life spans and are fraught with problems and disease....

The subject is kind of like taking the time now to establish laws and proceedures for day to day life for the general public living in the Mars colonies....

[Whoa182]

errr its cloned meat! There is no difference...

[Rheneas]

Cloned meat is no different from normal meat whereas genetically modified meat is something to be afraid of.

[sublime]

I think it is a waste of taxpayer monies at this point to even be worrying about it. Cloning is not a viable option at this point as ALL clones have shorter life spans and are fraught with problems and disease....

The subject is kind of like taking the time now to establish laws and proceedures for day to day life for the general public living in the Mars colonies....
Can you help me post a link to this article? I don't know how to do it. :)

[KvonM]

I think it is a waste of taxpayer monies at this point to even be worrying about it. Cloning is not a viable option at this point as ALL clones have shorter life spans and are fraught with problems and disease....

this may be a silly question, but would that really make a difference? keep in mind that veal only has to be around less than a year, rock cornish game hens are nothing but 6-8 month old chickens (i think... trying to remember what saint alton said), fryers are 2 years old (again, i think). if these animals are being cloned purely for human consumption, it's not like anyone's expecting them to stick around for stud services or something.

[ProfGumby]

this may be a silly question, but would that really make a difference? keep in mind that veal only has to be around less than a year, rock cornish game hens are nothing but 6-8 month old chickens (i think... trying to remember what saint alton said), fryers are 2 years old (again, i think). if these animals are being cloned purely for human consumption, it's not like anyone's expecting them to stick around for stud services or something.
You have a point there.

[ProfGumby]

Can you help me post a link to this article? I don't know how to do it. :)

If I understand your questio correctly, this should do it...

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost.php?p=6538279&postcount=9

Basically you just highlight, copy and paste....

If you meant a link to the article where clones are shorter lived etc...I have no one source, just google it.

[Mutant]

I think there are two problems. First, the first clones havent been healthy and dont survive wrong. And they don't really know why. I think it is premature to rush into the whole thing when they dont understand the process for the sake of a dollar. Second, it was the lack of genetic diversity of the potato in Ireland that led to massive starvation during the blight. A clone will have even less diversity (zero).

Are animals really having that much trouble reproducing? Will there be animal fertility clinics in the near future? ;) (of course this discounts any CR'ed animals that probably suffer from ED)

[Angeline]

Why clone? that's what I was wondering. I just can't see what would be the advantage of cloning animals. It's not as if it's difficult to breed animals using modern husbandry techniques.

So what other advantage would there be? To promote a special set of traits ? Humans have been doing that through breeding techniques for thousands of years.

I don't get it.

[Nancy LC]

Uh, chances are you would never eat a cloned animal. Not when it costs probably 20,000+ dollars to clone an animal. Goodness, I'd hate to buy that steak! I suspect they'll clone animals for breeding, not eating.

[kyrasdad]

Slate weighs in...

All kinds of links on-topic at the Slate site, so it's better to read it there.

"The Bum Rap on Cloned Food" (http://www.slate.com/id/2156931/fr/flyout)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? People have puzzled over that question for at least 2,000 years. In the eternal cycle of natural reproduction, they saw no answer. But the cycle turns out not to be eternal. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration tentatively approved the use of cloned animals to make food. Natural reproduction is giving way to artificial reproduction. And with the new era comes a new question: Which came first, the steer or the steak?

Case in point: Elvis. He's a 19-month-old Angus calf. You can view him on the Web site of ViaGen, a cloning company. In a recent slide presentation from the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the caption below his photo reads, "Elvis was cloned from a side of Prime Yield Grade 1 beef."

No joke: The calf came from the beef. And Elvis is no freak show. He's a business plan. "Some of your animals have more income potential than others," ViaGen reminds farmers. "Our services help you identify, preserve, and reproduce the genetics of those animals." If a steer is already dead, no problem. In fact, the best way to judge its steakworthiness is to cut it open and hang it on a hook. That's what happened to the original incarnation of Elvis. "Biopsy samples should be collected from your animal as soon as possible," ViaGen advises. If you like that side of beef and want another just like it, we can grow it for you.

A steer from a steak from a steer. Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has re-entered the building.

The political fight over animal cloning is just beginning. It's a lot like the fight over human cloning, except that the roles are reversed. Right-wing groups and Republican senators fanned fear and ignorance about human cloning; left-wing groups and Democratic senators are fanning fear and ignorance about animal cloning. Moderates on both sides get trampled. So do principles. The same liberals who demand stem-cell research using human embryos and who blasted the FDA for delaying approval of emergency contraception now accuse the FDA of recklessly approving cloned food.

The left-wingers want the FDA, Congress, and President Bush to keep clones off the market. Their case, laid out in a petition to the FDA, is a mess of anecdotes, obsolete data, speculation, and ideology. Like right-wingers in the human cloning debate, they expect the government to honor even their "religious" objections. But their strongest argument is that cloned food is unsafe, since cloning, unlike fertilization, often fails to reprogram genes for normal embryonic development.

It's a sensible worry, but the facts don't bear it out. The FDA's review, based on exhaustive and fully disclosed analysis of scientific journal articles, health records, blood samples, and meat and milk composition, found no "food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats." The agency concluded that "food from the sexually reproduced offspring of clones is as safe as food that we eat every day."

Why don't reprogramming errors taint your food? Because if they're serious, they kill the animal before it's old enough to be milked or eaten, or they cause defects that make the animal flunk federal food safety inspections. They don't carry over to a clone's offspring, since fertilization, like rebooting, cleans up programming errors. And the offspring are where the milk and meat will come from. ViaGen charges $15,000 to clone a steer. You don't butcher a $15,000 clone. You use it for breeding.

Critics say cloning often causes health problems for cloned animals and their surrogate mothers. That's true, but less so in some species, and the rate of complications is falling as the technology improves. Opponents of cloning also suggest we should ban it because it's unethical "to alter the essential nature of animals." Essential nature? We've been breeding animals for 15,000 years. We've been artificially inseminating them for nearly 700 years. Most apples, bananas, grapes, peaches, and potatoes are clones, and a lot of meat sold today was produced through in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer, or embryo splitting.

The silliest rap on cloning is that it offers "no consumer benefits." That's insane. Cloning means total genome control. It bypasses the uncertainties of breeding. It also improves breeding, since five clones of your best bull or cow produce five times as much sperm or eggs. Theoretically, you can target any trait for cloning: more muscle, less fat, more omega-3 acids. You can even help the environment by cloning animals that eat grass instead of grain.

In principle—with apologies to Bill Clinton—there's nothing wrong with biotechnology that can't be cured by what's right with biotechnology. Yes, poorly cultivated clones may require antibiotics. But efficient cloning can reduce the use of antibiotics, not to mention growth hormones, by spreading healthier genes. Yes, factory farming can transmit mad cow disease. But guess what blocked mad cow disease in a study released this week? A combination of genetic engineering and cloning.

Cloning can be humane, too. Farmers don't want their animals to get sick. Instead of calves that are born big, they'd rather get calves that are born small—so their mothers can deliver them easily—and grow quickly thereafter. Dairy farmers prefer female calves to males, which get slaughtered for veal. Cloning could address all three problems. Biotechnology might even help us grow meat without growing and killing whole animals.

Messing with nature at this level is never simple. It requires ongoing debate, monitoring, and regulation. But we're not even getting that debate. Instead, opponents are relying, as they have in the human cloning debate, on the sheer fact that cloning freaks people out. To reinforce this revulsion and intimidate regulators, politicians, and food producers, they constantly emphasize surveys showing that Americans are uncomfortable with cloned food, think it's unsafe, and won't buy it. As though polls settled the matter. As though the FDA should put science before politics, but only when it suits liberals.

Yes, we're scared of cloned food. But according to the same polls, most of us have heard little about animal biotechnology, don't know biotech food is already in supermarkets, and, against all reason, are more afraid of cloning animals than of genetically engineering them. Don't be cowed. Question your fears. That's the difference between us and the animals.

[ysabella]

So it's child-of-clone meat, not clone meat. I don't think I'd have a problem with that. They might even clone really good milk cows, too, and I wouldn't have a problem with clone milk. Or eggs from cloned chickens (or cloned chicken descendents).

Having a whole lot of cloned animals would be a problem, because if they turned out to lack resistance to a disease, a minor outbreak could wipe them all out - like what is rumored to be stalking our main supply of bananas, which are all clones in a sense. Considering how much that would cost, I figure they have thought about that. It makes sense to clone and breed from a clone, sure thing.

That's clone meat, not clown meat. Clown meat would taste funny. http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/a29.gif

[potatofree]

That's clone meat, not clown meat. Clown meat would taste funny. http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/a29.gif

badaBOOM.... :lol:

[CVH]

I think the FDA officials, the scientists/doctors, etc... AND all their families should eat cloned animals ONLY for 2 years.

If they're all fine and have no health problems related to cloned animals after the 2 years, then they should start doing it with the use of labels( I won't even buy them then).

If not, then they deserve what they got for trying to push it on the uninformed, unsuspecting public.

But realisticly, I would never buy cloned animals , the gov needs to stop f***ing with my food.

[sublime]

If I understand your questio correctly, this should do it...

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost.php?p=6538279&postcount=9

Basically you just highlight, copy and paste....

If you meant a link to the article where clones are shorter lived etc...I have no one source, just google it.

Thank you, and I will try and post it today. Wish me luck though, I'm still somewhat computer stupid! :)

[sublime]

I think the FDA officials, the scientists/doctors, etc... AND all their families should eat cloned animals ONLY for 2 years.

If they're all fine and have no health problems related to cloned animals after the 2 years, then they should start doing it with the use of labels( I won't even buy them then).

If not, then they deserve what they got for trying to push it on the uninformed, unsuspecting public.

But realisticly, I would never buy cloned animals , the gov needs to stop f***ing with my food.
He he he :lol: Word cotton :) ;)

[potatofree]

I'm personally kind of glad the government DOES "f***" with my food, somewhat. I shudder to think that if the (sometimes too weak) standards of cleanliness and safety weren't in place, what kinds of yuck would end up on my plate....

[sublime]

I'm personally kind of glad the government DOES "f***" with my food, somewhat. I shudder to think that if the (sometimes too weak) standards of cleanliness and safety weren't in place, what kinds of yuck would end up on my plate....
Hey Tater!! Let me clarify my answer :lol: I appreciate the safety precautions, but don't like the growth hormones and stuff like that. Thats why I prefer organic(although I can't affort it ;) ) So whats shaken little lady? :) :wave:

[potatofree]

Sometimes, it's hard to pick and choose where we want how much "interference" though... living in farm/ranch country, I know there are plenty of rules broken already, and if it wasn't for the fear of getting caught, a lot more than hormones and antibiotics would be in that meat than the levels shown already. I don't like the idea of extra "stuff" in my food, either, but I also appreciate the need to control disease in livestock and that there aren't enough definative studies to prove a connection between what IS found and any health risks... so it's a rock and a hard place thing to me.

When I have the choice, and when the price difference isn't prohibitive, I choose the kinds labeled "no hormones or antibiotics used", though. I'm not big on risk-taking if I don't HAVE to. ;)

So whats shaken little lady?

All the parts that aren't little yet...actually. :lol:

[Nancy LC]

But realisticly, I would never buy cloned animals , the gov needs to stop f***ing with my food.
Uh, the government isn't doing anything to your food, it is responding to the manufacturers who want to f*** with your food.

[refmls]

So it's child-of-clone meat, not clone meat. I don't think I'd have a problem with that. They might even clone really good milk cows, too, and I wouldn't have a problem with clone milk. Or eggs from cloned chickens (or cloned chicken descendents).

Having a whole lot of cloned animals would be a problem, because if they turned out to lack resistance to a disease, a minor outbreak could wipe them all out - like what is rumored to be stalking our main supply of bananas, which are all clones in a sense. Considering how much that would cost, I figure they have thought about that. It makes sense to clone and breed from a clone, sure thing.



That's the whole point. Once a steer is butchered for it's meat, it's way too late to use it for reproduction - twice over. First, it's dead, and second, a steer is by definition a neutered male. No babies there.

On your second point, breeding to eliminate disease susceptibility takes years and years. If you can identify individual animals that are resistant to a wide variety of diseases, cloning those animals would shorten the whole process by decades.

[refmls]

I'm personally kind of glad the government DOES "f***" with my food, somewhat. I shudder to think that if the (sometimes too weak) standards of cleanliness and safety weren't in place, what kinds of yuck would end up on my plate....

For real nightmares, read "Terrors of the Table: The Curious History of Nutrition" by Walter Gratzer. He describes in revolting detail the kinds of foods available to lower income urban people - the kind who couldn't grow their own meats and vegetables. It will make you grateful for plastic wrap and modern canning and freezing techniques.

[Mutant]

On your second point, breeding to eliminate disease susceptibility takes years and years. If you can identify individual animals that are resistant to a wide variety of diseases, cloning those animals would shorten the whole process by decades.

The point is there is no such thing as one set of genes which are the best at staving off every pathogen and disease. With herds of cloned animals the risk is very real, and really just a matter of time, that a pathogen will come through and wipe out every animal. The beauty of genetic diversity is that no matter how bad the pathogen, a few are likely to survive. As I mentioned before, the potato used in Ireland before the blight was a single type. Had they had a diversity of potato types (or even no relied so heavily on one specie for their food supply) millions would have lived and not starved to death. There are plenty of other examples with regard to human disease, HIV/AIDS and smallbox being prime examples. I suspect that most of the buisnessmen with financial interests in animal cloning have as little understanding of genetics and disease. And even if they did it prolly wouldn't bother them if they still thought they could turn a profit.