[Celeste]

<shiver> Really? I think I'll pass, at least for the next 20 years, thank you very much.

On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a report that concludes cloned animals are as safe to eat as ordinary livestock.

To make matters worse, (for me at least) the FDA stated that, there is "no science-based reason" for using labels to identify food from clones.

What? Shouldn't it be my choice? I feel like a human guinea pig.

I know the cost of cloning is outrageous and the likelihood of a cloned T-bone landing on my table in the near future might be thin to non-exsistant at this moment, but.....things like gene mutations, mad cows disease, even the FDA's "studied" and then ill-approved Vioxx and Fhen Fhen keep coming to mind...

Anyone else have thoughts on this? Pros? Cons?

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Celeste

Anyone else have thoughts on this? Pros? Cons?

I believe I'd have to pass if asked to eat a clone-burger also. The food supply seems to be falling apart these days with the ecoli scares recently occuring at Toca Bell. And that's not nearly the full extent of the problems we seem to be facing lately. With the manipulation of growth hormones being given to the beef cattle, who really knows what we're eating these days anyway. One redeeming fact which Celeste already mentioned, at least for the moment cloned-burger would be out of the question for reasons of economics. Hopefully this condition will remain the status quo until they put me in the ground........................Infy

[Zythryn]

If it is a true clone (i.e. DNA is 100% duplicated with no changes) I see no harm what-so-ever. Would anyone be nervous eating a burger from a cow that had a twin?

I do see two areas of concern which I would need more information about. One, are the embryos or mothers that carry the cloned creatures treated with any chemicals/hormones that other animals of that species are not?
Two, what damage is possible from imperfect cloning AND how often is there damage to the DNA in the cloning process.
If there is damage how is it scanned for to prevent any hazards to the consumer and what would be the consequences of failure (we have seen the consequences of e-coli).

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

If it is a true clone (i.e. DNA is 100% duplicated with no changes) I see no harm what-so-ever. Would anyone be nervous eating a burger from a cow that had a twin?

Very good point Zythryn, nevertheless.................???

Originally Posted by Zythryn

what damage is possible from imperfect cloning AND how often is there damage to the DNA in the cloning process.

From everything I've read about cloned animals to date, they all seem to die way too soon. Albeit not conclusive, this fact alone should raise a lot of suspicion about defects in the DNA..................Infy

[InfiniteNow]

I've eaten some questionable foods in my day. I say, clone the prized steer over and over and over and let me have a hell of a nice filet that would normally cost me $30 or $40 for 99¢.

We as humans are locusts when it comes to our eating habits. At the very least we could alleviate some of the drain on natural resources by cloning our foods instead.

I vote - It's happening, and I don't have a problem with it. Please pass the genetically modified corn while you're at it.

Maybe we can even genetically manipulate the cattle in such a way as to eliminate the current heart disease and cancer problems that tend to accompany ingestion of red meat.

[Boerseun]

No problems over here! Will you pass me the six-legged chicked while you're at it?

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

No problems over here! Will you pass me the six-legged chicked while you're at it?

Zythryn makes some good points. These should be addressed. Also don't cloned animals age a bit faster?

Why do we need it?
Are US bulls eating too much chicken with hormones in it? or visiting gay bars?

How will the Japanese take to US exported cloned beef?
That will really be the deciding factor about whether USA-ians get to eat cloned beef won't it?

I can't see why cloned meat can't be labeled for those that may be concerned.
Most fruit (& the occasional vegetable) is cloned now.

I don't have any problems eating cloned meat (apart from Zythryn above) as true clones (100% identical) don't really exist anyway.

[TheBigDog]

I don't understand the hesitation. What does everyone think the purpose of cloning is? Zoo exhibits? Wait until the FDA approves implanting cloned spare human parts. If you are concerned about labeling then write your representatives at the state and local level. But don't be surprised if the whole thing gets all confused and your concern about meat labeling turns into all sorts of concerns with cloning that cause disruptions in the research and application of findings.

While we are at it, what defines a clone? Navel oranges all come from clippings from a single original tree (this may no longer be the case, but is the original case). So all navel orange trees are in a sense clones of the first tree, but from a simple and ancient process.

Bill

[maikeru]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I've eaten some questionable foods in my day. I say, clone the prized steer over and over and over and let me have a hell of a nice filet that would normally cost me $30 or $40 for 99¢.

We as humans are locusts when it comes to our eating habits. At the very least we could alleviate some of the drain on natural resources by cloning our foods instead.

I vote - It's happening, and I don't have a problem with it. Please pass the genetically modified corn while you're at it.

Maybe we can even genetically manipulate the cattle in such a way as to eliminate the current heart disease and cancer problems that tend to accompany ingestion of red meat.

Many of the problems with cattle, such as the increased fat and unhealthiness of their meat, seem more related to the way cattle are kept and fed (soybeans, corn, etc.) rather than their inherent qualities. I've heard that grass-fed, free-range cattle yield much healthier meat, which have less fat and more omega-3s and more protein. If we do want to modify our animals, this might be one way to do it:

Wired News: Bring Home the Biotech Bacon

Mmm, biotech bacon... Next: biotech beef.

Personally, I feel that the many resources required to clone cattle could be better spent elsewhere. I *know* that the cloned beef is not fundamentally different from regular beef, but it still sounds weird and unappetizing.

[Boerseun]

I see a future where we'll have vast factories with 'vats' containing a growth solution into which specifically engineered stem-cells are introduced, to grow a predetermined cut of meat. If you want a beef fillet, you grow just the fillet - you don't need the full cow.

All the side products of the meat industry (leather, etc.) can also be grown in these 'vats'. You can grow a single continuous sheet of leather hundreds of meters long, you'll only be limited with the size of your 'vats'.

And I'll be fine with it - if it looks like meat and taste like meat and has the same texture, I'll be just dandy with it.

[/Baseless futuristic speculation]