FDA poised to OK food from cloned animals

New Posts

JBean said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tom'sGirl said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
JBean said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 :cool:
 
Tom'sGirl said:
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 :cool:
Click to expand...
Yes, that is how I read it. Just seems to me there is no reason to label either which way.
 
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.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/cloning/cloningrisks/
 
Becba said:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.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/cloning/cloningrisks/
Click to expand...
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.

“It’s not a genetically engineered animal; no genes have been changed or moved or deleted,” she said. “It’s 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.

That’s 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<<
 
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.....!
 
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?
 
reb said:
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.....!
Click to expand...
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.
 
reb said:
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.....!
Click to expand...
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. :truce: JMO.
 
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!!)
 
czechmate7 said:
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!!)
Click to expand...
It will be the Mad Cow disease all over again, in humans this time.
 
I do not beleive they have had a fertile cloned animal yet.

Articles I have read says they have imune deficiency problems and never live to a normal age even if they appear to be healthy. I ain't eating no sick cows.

They need to do a lot more research before they bring in the clones.:D
 
Becba said:
I do not beleive they have had a fertile cloned animal yet.

Articles I have read says they have imune deficiency problems and never live to a normal age even if they appear to be healthy. I ain't eating no sick cows.
Click to expand...
or pigs, or chickens, or lambs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 197 more.
Total: 3,500 (members: 198, guests: 3,302)

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
3,302
Total visitors
3,500
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,749
Messages
17,958,390
Members
228,602
Latest member
jrak
Back
Top