1233 users online (280 members and 953 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SO CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    11,332

    FDA poised to OK food from cloned animals

    Scientists say meat, milk just as safe as from conventional livestock

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372490/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom'sGirl
    Scientists say meat, milk just as safe as from conventional livestock

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372490/
    Is it live or is it memorex?
    This makes sense to me. It seems as though it would be as good as the original IMO.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SO CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    11,332
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean
    Is it live or is it memorex?
    This makes sense to me. It seems as though it would be as good as the original IMO.
    I agree.

    I was listening to the tube during the day sometime and they were discussing this. They said there will no difference in taste, and we will never know if the beef we buy comes from a cloned animal or not.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom'sGirl
    I agree.

    I was listening to the tube during the day sometime and they were discussing this. They said there will no difference in taste, and we will never know if the beef we buy comes from a cloned animal or not.
    I cannot imagine it would make one bit of difference. Unless, of course, you are some sort of Clone Connoisseur
    or would that be a Cloneoisseur?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SO CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    11,332
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean
    I cannot imagine it would make one bit of difference. Unless, of course, you are some sort of Clone Connoisseur
    or would that be a Cloneoisseur?
    Cloneoisseur, good one

    I think what they were referring to was if the meat was going to be labeled 'cloned' or not and the implied that it wouldn't as the stock was going to be tracked that far down the line.

    Hey, if it looks like a RibEye, tastes like a RibEye, I'm eatin that sucker

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom'sGirl
    Cloneoisseur, good one

    I think what they were referring to was if the meat was going to be labeled 'cloned' or not and the implied that it wouldn't as the stock was going to be tracked that far down the line.

    Hey, if it looks like a RibEye, tastes like a RibEye, I'm eatin that sucker
    Yes, that is how I read it. Just seems to me there is no reason to label either which way.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,384
    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...shtml#problems

    Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia's first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death.

    High rates of infection, tumors... I think I'll pass on the clones.

    And this site is easy to find the array of problems.
    http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units.../cloningrisks/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Becba
    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...shtml#problems

    Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia's first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death.

    High rates of infection, tumors... I think I'll pass on the clones.

    And this site is easy to find the array of problems.
    http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units.../cloningrisks/
    Good articles becba..I'll have to read them more carefully. Always pros and cons.
    I don't think the clones would be in the food supply for some time, only their offspring.

    >>
    Cloning lets farmers and ranchers make copies of exceptional animals, such as pigs that fatten rapidly or cows that are superior milk producers.

    We clone an animal because we want a genetic twin of that animal, said Barb Glenn of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

    Its not a genetically engineered animal; no genes have been changed or moved or deleted, she said. Its simply a genetic twin that we can then use for future matings to improve the overall health and well-being of the herd.

    Thus, consumers would mostly get food from their offspring and not the clones themselves, Glenn said.

    Still, some clones would end up in the food supply. As with conventional livestock, a cloned bull or cow that outlived its usefulness would probably wind up at a hamburger plant, and a cloned dairy cow would be milked during her breeding years.

    Thats unlikely to happen soon, because FDA officials have asked farmers and cloning companies since 2001 to voluntarily keep clones and their offspring out of the food supply<<

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Becba
    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...shtml#problems


    High rates of infection, tumors... I think I'll pass on the clones.

    And this site is easy to find the array of problems.
    http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units.../cloningrisks/
    I'm with Becba on this one!! I'll have to pass on the clones too!!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,967
    noooooooooooooooooo! sorry, but i'm not ready to enter the 'brave new world'. since when did animals reproducing naturally become so not in vogue?? children are next, i'm sure.

    besides,, hearing the phrase 'scientists say it's perfectly safe' raises all kinds of red flags.... geez, wonder why, lol.....!


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,711
    Its much cheaper to clone an A grade quality of the stock then to naturally breed and wait for the next to come along...


    For example if you clone the best egg laying chicken it ups the egg production without the care and cost of raising naturally bred birds that may have illness or not produce so well ... without cloning the farmer is still rolling the dice and feeding all these animals that are not producing as well.
    This is really not much different then selective breeding which has been going on since farming began.

    Its really very sad that these fringe groups take advantage of humankinds lack of knowledge and cause hysteria about these types of things (usually based on some religious belief)

    Another example is Nuclear Power... Everyone thinks of Chernobyl (sp?)
    When in fact Nucler Power is cleaner and kinder to the planet.
    Think of how many people die each year using fossil fuels?
    Wasn't it something near a dozen just a couple of weeks ago in Washington state?
    Yet people are afraid of Nuclear power plants which don't cause nearly the same damage to the environment... As a matter of fact in Florida we have several Nuclear Power plants and they are probably the sole reason that the population of Manatees still exist ..as they pump warm water into bays where manatees live and boats are not permitted.

    People always say they want to stop world hunger..
    Well let me ask you what is closer to achieving that goal? Some third world farmer trying to sustain a breeding population of chickens that lay enough eggs to feed his family and those chickens may or may not while still taxing his resources, or a verified stock that has proven to be not only healthy but prolific breeders?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by reb
    noooooooooooooooooo! sorry, but i'm not ready to enter the 'brave new world'. since when did animals reproducing naturally become so not in vogue?? children are next, i'm sure.

    besides,, hearing the phrase 'scientists say it's perfectly safe' raises all kinds of red flags.... geez, wonder why, lol.....!
    The article says generally the idea is to clone the best animals and then use their offspring as a food source. To those of you that are not willing to eat cloned meat, do you feel the same about the offspring of the cloned animals? they would be conceived naturally.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,459
    Quote Originally Posted by reb
    noooooooooooooooooo! sorry, but i'm not ready to enter the 'brave new world'. since when did animals reproducing naturally become so not in vogue?? children are next, i'm sure.

    besides,, hearing the phrase 'scientists say it's perfectly safe' raises all kinds of red flags.... geez, wonder why, lol.....!
    Ditto that, reb!! If it becomes the norm, I suppose I'll never know the difference, but I'd definitely prefer if there was no cloning involved, ever, for animals or people! It just seems wrong, to me. JMO.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *My posts are my opinions, expressed freely thanks to the First Amendment.*

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,500
    I can see it now...women who ingest the products of cloned animals will give birth to individuals who 20 yrs later will see side effects....IMO (of course!!)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    at home
    Posts
    23,627
    Quote Originally Posted by czechmate7
    I can see it now...women who ingest the products of cloned animals will give birth to individuals who 20 yrs later will see side effects....IMO (of course!!)
    It will be the Mad Cow disease all over again, in humans this time.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Arizona poised to heed the anguished call of children
    By OkieGranny in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-29-2014, 09:34 PM
  2. Cloned Animals Are Safe to Eat, FDA Says
    By Sally in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 06:04 PM
  3. Alaska Volcano Poised for Huge Eruption
    By Buzz Mills in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-18-2007, 11:28 AM
  4. World's first cloned pooch
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-04-2005, 08:23 AM