...and i officially started buying rice/soy milk today:


http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4139003&page=1

Quote :

""The milk and meat from clones are as safe to eat as the food we eat every day," FDA Deputy Commissioner Randall Lutter said. But critics insist that cloning is a new field, and there are too many unknowns. Joseph Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety said, "We don't think that the data has been looked at fully. We don't think that data fully exists." Opponents also want meat and milk from clones labeled as such, but the government says it won't require that."

1/17/2008 10:52:15 PM

Are you completely opposed to cloning, or do you simply want to play it safe for a while?

Either way, I strongly support a move away from dairy.

1/17/2008 11:05:26 PM

playing it safe ... if i really had a conscience about cruel treatment of animals, i probably would've given up meat by now. it just tastes so good.

what's wrong w/ dairy?

1/17/2008 11:10:21 PM

definitely should be labelled as such

1/17/2008 11:10:50 PM

Quote :

"what's wrong w/ dairy?"

Cruel treatment of animals. But this thread really isn't the place for that debate.

I mainly wanted to see the reason behind your opposition to cloned animals. I imagine some primitivists oppose it on a rather different basis.

1/17/2008 11:26:35 PM

Quote :

"definitely should be labelled as such"

1/18/2008 4:44:24 AM

If treatment of animals is the problem, then treat the animals better. I need my vitamin D goddam it.

1/18/2008 8:26:34 AM

as long as the resulting clone milk/beef has to pass the same standards as normal milk/beef i dont have a problem with this.

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 9:11 AM. Reason : beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeef]

1/18/2008 9:09:56 AM

Cloned animals cost too much to eat, so most likely they will just be used for breeding purposes.

1/18/2008 9:32:58 AM

Yeah, and according to Sanjay Gupta, http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2008/01/cloned-food-and-milk.html

actual clone meat/milk probably won't be on store shelves for 3-5 years. But clone offspring is still weird enough for me to avoid it.

And apparently,

Quote :

"the USDA is still asking farmers not to sell offspring of clones voluntarily so the public, retailers and other countries who buy U.S. meat can get used to the idea of consuming food from clones."

But wtf does it mean to "involuntarily" sell clone offspring? If they're breeding the clone offspring cows, they're likely going to sell them/the byproducts.

1/18/2008 9:43:53 AM

Quote :

"as long as the resulting clone milk/beef has to pass the same standards as normal milk/beef i dont have a problem with this."

the problem with this attitude is that, while you might not care,

many consumers do in fact care greatly about how something is produced

not just about the "resulting" product itself

("made in the USA", "Non-GMO", "100% organic", "fairly traded", "hand-made", etc.)

again, you might not care, but others do

while some labels shouldn't be required, because the label simply indicates some "good" ("hand-made")

other labels should be required, because the lack of the label indicates some "bad" ("Non-GMO")

we don't have to guarantee that consumers know what is "good", but we should let them know what is "bad"



now, don't get me wrong, I'm libertarian

however, I can only honestly support libertarian principles when they aren't already "negated" by current policies*

iow, I support free and open borders and immigration, but not with welfare state policies in effect



in this case, I support free enterprise and free speech, but not when the market isn't as free as it should be

iow, in a perfect world, simple consumer demand for labeled whatever, would force non-labelers out of business

but in today's fascist super-emporium, there is little hope of boycotts having a real effect

so, until that's fixed, labels should be required wherever a significant number of consumers demand them to be



what really pisses me off, is when the government not only won't force labeling "suspect" products,

but when they prohibit other companies from labeling their products as not being "suspect"

(the government wouldn't require GMO labels, and then prohibited (or tried to) "Non-GMO" labels)




*people have a lot of opinions on why the libertarian party may be "doomed"

imho, the reason is because of "textbook libertarians" that ignore practical issues in favor of pure libertarian rhetoric

examples:
- immigration (libertarians want free immigration, but should oppose it because of the current welfare state)
- environment (libertarians want free human activity, but should oppose it when it harms endangered animals/lands)
- product labeling (libertarians want no government interference, but should want it when without the free market)
- public schools (libertarians want public schooling abolished, but should participate when their kids attend)

1/18/2008 10:06:10 AM

Quote :

"as long as the resulting clone milk/beef has to pass the same standards as normal milk/beef i dont have a problem with this."

The only reason I see for it to be labeled is that a lot of people will freak out if it's not. It doesn't really matter to me.

But what's the real advantage here? If you have a super pedigree cow or whatever, why not just breed it and save money instead of dumping tens of thousands to clone it? I would think that would cancel out any additional money the company would get from having another version of the same animal.

1/18/2008 10:08:28 AM

From my feeble science understanding, cloned animals are not genetically modified, they are simply copied biologically. Not that I completely trust the FDA, but we are already eating many plant products, such as corn, that have been genetically modified to be bigger, tastier etc. Cloning isn't as drastic a procedure as GMO.

The problem with gov't enforced labelling is that of all the numerous components that go into the production of something...a group of politicians is going to decide which thing is important enough to pull out and splash across the label.

The gov't basically is choosing sides over political debates..."Non-Union produced", "Fairly traded" "Hand-made" are all poltical choices that gov't could force producers to advertise on their products using the public welfare as an excuse.

1/18/2008 11:31:11 AM

How would you like your steak? Rare? Medium rare? Well cloned?

1/18/2008 11:53:41 AM

Is there anything inherent in the cloning process that would make a cloned cow's meat any different from any other cow's meat? It's my understanding that a cloned animal still grows from cells to whole cows just like any other cow. So what exactly would make a cloned cow's meat any more dangerous than any other cow?

1/18/2008 12:29:20 PM

Quote :

"Is there anything inherent in the cloning process that would make a cloned cow's meat any different from any other cow's meat?"

Quote :

"many consumers...care greatly about how something is produced not just about the "resulting" product itself ("made in the USA", "Non-GMO", "100% organic", "fairly traded", "hand-made", etc.) again, you might not care, but others do"

1/18/2008 12:36:31 PM

Quote :

"Is there anything inherent in the cloning process that would make a cloned cow's meat any different from any other cow's meat?"

The jury's still out. Experiments have produced varying results. The Center for Food Safety seems skeptical:

Quote :

"Animal cloning is a new technology with potentially severe risks for food safety. Defects in clones are common, and cloning scientists warn that even small imbalances in clones could lead to hidden food safety problems in clones' milk or meat. [...] The FDA's veterinary medicine advisory panel rebuked the agency in 2003 for its position, declaring that not enough research has been done to determine whether food derived from cloned animals is safe. In fact, livestock cloning raises numerous health and ethical concerns. Over 90 percent of cloning attempts fail, and cloned animals that are born have more health problems and higher mortality rates than sexually reproduced animals."

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/cloned_animals.cfm


The most cited case of cloned animal developmental problems is Dolly, the cloned sheep that died prematurely of virus-induced lung cancer at the age of six. When this animal was cloned in '97, scientists noted that its cells seemed to be the same age as its DNA-donor, a six-year-old sheep:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/000964.html


In another case, six cows cloned in the US showed signs of "reverse ageing," appearing biologically younger than they actually were:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/728088.stm


Either way, the potential for cloning to produce "funny meat" exists.

1/18/2008 1:48:53 PM

But seriously. The normality required for an animal to survive is much higher than it is to eat. And after you cook it, meat looks nothing like meat.

1/18/2008 2:01:00 PM

No doubt. Cooked beef from cows/cow offspring with cloning-induced genetic developmental deficiencies could be completely harmless.

But still, it's

Quote :

"weird enough for me to avoid it."

1/18/2008 2:56:36 PM

so, you guys who will "definitely avoid this", do you make it a point to avoid genetically modified crops?

1/18/2008 3:04:02 PM

Once I'm able to afford to buy organic, I'll do it. I'm reasonable--I know that, practically, not all genetically modified foods/preservatives/additives can be avoided. But with beef and milk already loaded with hormones and, on top of that now, cloned cow products being approved for consumption, I'm a little wary (of cumulative effects, maybe?). Moreover, it's just plain weird for my taste.

Besides, with my diet, cutting out beef and milk will be a relatively small adjustment.

1/18/2008 3:49:23 PM

i like hormones and preservatives and stuff like that

1/18/2008 3:58:37 PM

Quote :

""many consumers...care greatly about how something is produced not just about the "resulting" product itself ("made in the USA", "Non-GMO", "100% organic", "fairly traded", "hand-made", etc.) again, you might not care, but others do""

Yes yes yes, and those consumers can seek out companies which do not use cloned, GMO or any other alphabet soup combination and buy their products. That's no reason to force food to be labeled as such if it poses no health issues. A public interest is different from an interested public.

Quote :

"The jury's still out. Experiments have produced varying results. The Center for Food Safety seems skeptical: "

Still not quite clear. Defects that prevent long life don't necessarily translate to health concerns, but thanks for the links.

1/18/2008 10:08:38 PM

^^ Dang, and I just thought about how much I'm going to miss butter, pizza (cheese), and milkshakes.

hmm, i might have to rethink this "complete avoidance" policy.

1/19/2008 12:08:14 AM

Quote :

"Cloned animals cost too much to eat, so most likely they will just be used for breeding purposes."

yeah that's what will happen in most of the cloned meat cases.

1/19/2008 12:15:02 AM

I haven't got a problem with anything in the food production industry or the cloning industry, but I'd still like to be notified about when I am purchasing cloned meat... it is especially important to put such a note on products because others may have a moral or religious opposition to eating meat that is not naturally produced. Similar to the whole situation of kosher meats, only more new-age.

Besides that,

Quote :

"clone offspring is still weird enough for me to avoid it."

I'm actually more hesitant to eat the children of clones than I am to eat the first-generation clones... seems like it would increase the chances for genetic problems.

[Edited on January 19, 2008 at 1:03 AM. Reason : .]

1/19/2008 1:01:57 AM

Quote :

"it is especially important to put such a note on products because others may have a moral or religious opposition to eating meat that is not naturally produced. Similar to the whole situation of kosher meats, only more new-age."

Except kosher products are labeled as such, not the other way around. That is, the people who have the moral / religious hang ups seek food that fits their beliefs. The same should apply here, if you have moral / religious concerns over cloned products, seek food that isn't cloned, but if there are no health concerns there's no reason to force cloned food to be labeled as such.

1/19/2008 12:57:39 PM

The problem then becomes when large factory farms push the FDA to disallow or discourage companies from labeling uncloned products as being such as has lately been done with rBST, a product which is illegal in virtually every country but the United States due to its ill effects.

1/19/2008 1:12:45 PM

^

1/19/2008 2:32:29 PM

Why would they waste so much money to clone an animal when they can just get the animals to have sex for free?

1/19/2008 3:12:48 PM

theoretically, they can clone prize cows (the ones that produce the most gallons of milk/day) and then breed them to create a stock of super-producing--hence more profitable--cattle.

genetically speaking, though, that's pretty risky, considering that species survival often depends on a frequent and thorough "reshuffling" of the gene pool.

1/19/2008 4:20:41 PM

yeah, you don't want cows to go the way of the banana.

1/19/2008 6:06:44 PM

Quote :

"The problem then becomes when large factory farms push the FDA to disallow or discourage companies from labeling uncloned products as being such as has lately been done with rBST, a product which is illegal in virtually every country but the United States due to its ill effects."

This however has nothing to do with whether cloned meat should be mandated to be labeled as such and everything to do with the many failures and shortcomings of the current implementation of the FDA. Why should the FDA have any authority to say that a company can NOT truthfully label their products? And given the failures, why should we seek to empower the FDA more with moral or religious crusades?

1/19/2008 10:13:02 PM

Quote :

"So what exactly would make a cloned cow's meat any more dangerous than any other cow?"

its actually safer because they can clone the healthy cows and clone cows with different genetic diseases to weed out weak genes and create super cows that are disease free.

people who don't want it are just mad because they think man is playing God.

1/20/2008 8:20:01 PM

Quote :

"so, you guys who will "definitely avoid this", do you make it a point to avoid genetically modified crops?"

generally, yes

Quote :

"I'm reasonable--I know that, practically, not all genetically modified foods/preservatives/additives can be avoided"

sure they can, (well, perhaps not "practically")

it may be difficult and expensive

but as long as the frankenfarmers don't contaminate everything

eating only organic* and non-gmo foods would allow one to avoid all gmos

(*as suspected since before its inception, the "USDA Organic" certification is already <100% pure)

Quote :

"Yes yes yes, and those consumers can seek out companies which do not use cloned, GMO or any other alphabet soup combination and buy their products. That's no reason to force food to be labeled as such if it poses no health issues. A public interest is different from an interested public."

that misses the point

our system isn't a free market like it should be

is it monolithic -- the entire industry generally acts they same, because of fascist forces

the food oligarchs even try to get the government to prohibit the use of "non-gmo" labels,

saying that it implies that food without the label is unsafe

if simple demand from the segment of society that wants labeling would actually compel most industry to do so

then we wouldn't have a problem


the problem is when industry is so fascist and monolithic that their decisions affect ALL consumer choice

they value the amount of sales profit that would result from not deciding to label things as what they are,

more than they value the average consumers' ability to get what they want

whenever consumer demands (not government force) are insufficient to compel industry to meet those demands

the [unfree] market has failed, and it is only proper for some governmental "affirmative action", if you will


now don't get me wrong, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of using government force to solve the problem

if anything, the governmental force should be used to free the market, abolish the FDA, etc. and ensure fair competition

then companies in the food industry would say,

"a lot of people want these things labeled, so instead of focusing solely on profits, we should give better service"

and

"if we didn't label these, we'd probably sell more, but shouldn't we let people know what they're getting? decide on their own?"

Quote :

"This however has nothing to do with whether cloned meat should be mandated to be labeled as such and everything to do with the many failures and shortcomings of the current implementation of the FDA. Why should the FDA have any authority to say that a company can NOT truthfully label their products? And given the failures, why should we seek to empower the FDA more with moral or religious crusades?"

right, but as long as the system is fucked up, consumers should still somehow get what they want

I agree that the FDA shouldn't "have any authority to say that a company can NOT truthfully label their products",

but they do, and until that changes, how are average middle class or poor consumers supposed to avoid clones and gmos?

do you actually think the average food lion would carry non-cloned meat? (some groceries only carry a couple brands)

and even if they did,

the fascist forces within the [FDA] food industry would "allow" only a tiny minority of non-cloned food producers

forcing the price of such food out of the range of all but the richest people, (who can afford organic anyway)

textbook libertarianism has no place in this -- yeah, in theory, government force isn't needed

but IN REALITY consumers' rights are paramount

all of this argument should really, though, be evidence to target the FDA and the fascist industry

but the FDA is intimately tied to other federal disasters, such as the DEA, so actual and real reform is unlikely soon

meanwhile

why don't you put down your ayn rand for a second and realize that fellow libertarians WANT FOOD LABELED

and don't need or appreciate the infighting


mark my words,

the refusal of the "textbook libertarians" to consider the practical demands of the rest of the libertarians

WILL BE THE END OF THE LIBERTARIANS

WHY CAN'T YOU FUCKING BIG 'L' LIBERTARIANS FIGHT FOR CAUSES THAT DON'T ONLY HELP BIG CORPORATIONS!??!?

YOU SUCK!!!!!

Quote :

"people who don't want it are just mad because they think man is playing God."

so it's ok to "play god"? or is cloning not "playing god"?

[Edited on January 21, 2008 at 10:03 AM. Reason : ]

1/21/2008 10:01:13 AM

If cloning and genetic modification is playing god then we have been doing it for ten thousand years. Not a one of our animals or crops existed back then, they were all created through thousands of years of selective breeding. What we do today is no different, just a little less haphazard.

1/21/2008 10:32:02 AM

^
oh please



:::RRROOOLLLLLLL::!!!!!!1

do you actually think anyone here is talking about that?

why would you go and make yourself look stupid by saying that?


yes yes yes, human selection combined with natural reproduction is technically a form of "genetic engineering"

but the only people who use the term "genetic engineering" in a context that includes human selection

are generally proponents of "genetic engineering" or opponents of those against "genetic engineering"

EVERYONE ELSE, (read: average regular people)

use the term "genetic engineering" to refer SPECIFICALLY to "artificial genetic engineering"

AND DON'T PRETEND LIKE YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT!


a fish and a strawberry can't fuck

so putting fish genes into a strawberry (by force, by damaging a living thing, invasive "surgery") IS ARTIFICIAL

that's what people are talking about, ok?

so, next time, before chiming in with that bullshit, you should ask, "are you talking about natural or artificial?"

then you can avoid looking like some dumbass corporate lawyer with your "WELL ACTUALLY..."



this "point" you made here is no better than those who say shit like,

"what do you mean this apple isn't organic? of course it is -- it contains carbon, right?"

1/21/2008 10:48:01 AM

You are begging the question. Is naturally selecting genes via natural selection (as has been done for a millenia of years) sufficiently different from artificially selecting genes via selective breeding (as has been done for 10,000 years)? Why are they so different from artificially selecting genes via radiation induced mutation (as has been done for 70 years)? Finally, why are they so different from artificially selecting genes via direct cellular manipulation (as has been done for 20 years)?

In my opinion, all of these forms of genetic manipulation are equally suspect and I want the same testing and research into all of them. The genes in the deer running around Raleigh are slowely being manipulated by natural selection, why should we be any less suspicious of eating deer than we are of eating laboratory modified cows?

1/21/2008 2:21:47 PM

cloned meat is always okay, if they are cloning healthy animals.

GM food is less certain, depending on what modifications they are making, but most of the GM food out there aren't the strawberry-in-to-rats type of GM.

1/21/2008 2:52:55 PM

Quote :

"Why are they so different from artificially selecting genes via radiation induced mutation (as has been done for 70 years)?"

This is a point I think is worth re-emphasizing. We've been doing haphazard forms of modern genetic engineering using various processes, in particular irradiation, for the better part of a century. Processes like this, especially using radiation, are essentially a spray-and-pray - you irradiate, see if anything beneficial comes out, and breed the strain. (And surprisingly, we managed to create some useful strains as a result, actually).

So, again - how is, as LoneSnark asks, modern genetic engineering a revolutionary process, rather than a gradual improvement on existing techniques, demanding in particular special scrutiny? Especially when much more haphazard methods (which have been nonetheless effective) do not produce this profound level of panic - and have not produced the feared effects dreaded from modern genetic engineering.

1/21/2008 4:07:31 PM

I think I'm just gonna stop buying food.

Like I won't be one of those "OMG, I MUST HAVE ORGANIC!" people.

Instead, I'm gonna be a free food bitch.

If it's free and it don't smell like shit, I'll eat it.

Fuck all this other noise.

1/21/2008 7:28:31 PM

^ The Campus Greens (I don't know if they still exist, but they did ~2 or 3 years ago) used to go through trash bins on Hillsborough Street and hold a food giveaway thing ... I think once a month. You should join them.

1/21/2008 8:59:56 PM

I was once leaving Fraziers with a ton of take out and saw some kid digging through a trashcan out on Hillsborough.

I thought to myself, I am going to hook this guy up with some great food. Just as I was about to gain his attention, he stands up out of the trash and places a bottle in his basket which was a recycling bin. I laughed on the inside and was glad that he got up before I offered him the food and possibly offend him.

Pretty cool those Campus Greens are so dedicated.

anyway...

1/21/2008 9:07:46 PM

Quote :

"So, again - how is, as LoneSnark asks, modern genetic engineering a revolutionary process, rather than a gradual improvement on existing techniques"

well, for starters

1) it is undeniably unnatural
2) it isn't necessary
3) it introduces "ownership" of life
4) it involves the initiation of force to achieve a social end
5) it is anthropocentric (in a bad way)
6) nature is all about scope.
(some mercury is ok, but don't cross that threshold; some deer population is ok, but don't cross that threshold)



^^^
I fully support proud human scavenging




^

Quote :

"Pretty cool those Campus Greens are so dedicated."

yeah I agree

too bad most loser rednecks at moo u not only don't recycle, but make fun of those that do

1/22/2008 2:53:23 AM

Quote :

"392: 1) it is undeniably unnatural 2) it isn't necessary 3) it introduces "ownership" of life 4) it involves the initiation of force to achieve a social end 5) it is anthropocentric (in a bad way) 6) nature is all about scope. (some mercury is ok, but don't cross that threshold; some deer population is ok, but don't cross that threshold)"

Nearly all of those issues you list apply to prior methods discussed as well. Further, a good number apply to any scientific modification of nature - all of them apply to selective breeding, for one, yet I'm assuming you don't have nearly the problem with this as you do with genetic engineering. About the only difference is scope, and even then - how much different is it really when you compare to prior methods being used for the better part of a century?

Thus, it comes back to the question - what so harshly delineates genetic engineering from other methods, like for instance, irradiation (which has been used prior to generate "random" mutations, which are then artificially selected for to speed up the process of human selection of natural mutations)?

1/22/2008 7:12:21 AM

For all bacon and sausage lovers (and goat milk lovers for that matter):

I missed this, but apparently the FDA slipped in a "consumer update" a few days after clone beef/milk issue hit headlines.

http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/cloning011508.html

1/25/2008 6:05:37 PM

sup jackson

1/30/2008 10:12:54 PM

^ marko!

just chillin...moving to texas soon where i can get all the clone beef i can eat.

2/4/2008 1:25:04 AM