Eating Cloned Animals?

[per]

The safety scientists say it is OK to eat cloned animals. What do you think the consumer will say when it is labeled "Cloned meat"? Oh I forgot, the consumer should just comply. Oh I forgot, they will never know!

[farmers_son]

We have been slaughtering twin calves, haven't we...is there really any difference between a twin calf and a cloned calf?

Re labelling: People eat weiners all the time and I dare say there is worse in them than a cloned calf. I suppose we should also label exactly what parts of the animal go into the weiner. Why not make that a new labelling law while we are at it?

Even better...Why not pass another law that retailers have to put labels on eggs describing where on the chicken eggs come from. Just part of the information service.

Enquiring minds want to know.

[cakadu]

Per, you bring up a controversial subject to be sure. Perhaps they can serve up some GM carrots with that cloned beef. See article at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7188969.stm

If nothing else, cloned animals bring up ethical questions, not the least of which is how can science state that they will be safe to eat, when no one has eaten them before?

If memory serves me right, when they cloned Dolly, she died "prematurely" for her chronological age because she was as "old" as the genetic material used to create her - at least that is what they theorized.

If we are moving towards age verification, then can we truly claim that the animals are as "young" as they are? How much harm will we do to our genetic pool and food safety by allowing only the "best" genes to be replicated?

I would strongly recommend that folks read the book "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan. In it he discusses how much of our food has become "nutritionalized" and based on science. Basing it on science, however, is flawed in that science has to study each nutrient in isolation so that they can control all the variables. Science also can't study how the nutrients interact with one another to provide the benefits, overall diet and lastly lifestyle.

Calcium is one nutrient that has been added to a number of products, orange juice being one of them. Have there been studies to show that the available calcium in orange juice is fully utilized and is as effective as it is in milk? Is it the other things that are available in milk that enable the calcium to be as effective as it is? We all absorb and utilize nutrients differently, so is adding it to something the best delivery method? There have been recent studies that show all the vitamins that people take have relatively little effect, but I suppose it is better than not having them at all.

I think the precautionary principle is in order here. We need to seriously ask ourselves about whether we should do something, just because we can. There are always unintended consequences to what we do.

[Cedar]

"...is there really any difference between a twin calf and a cloned calf?"

You bet there is! (Nature's law vs. Man's laws....er, uh...man's experiments, I should say)

"...I suppose we should also label exactly what parts of the animal go into the weiner."

Most definitely we should! If it's going in to my (or anybody's) body I have a right to know exactly what it is!!!!!!!! Only then do I have even the slightest chance of making an even slightly informed decision regarding my food. (my kids, by the way, won't even think about touching that crap anymore....and we don't even know what's in it! It's homemade weinies for these guys...only!) This next generation is wising up, not just my guys, but many of their friends too...they won't be as easily fooled as we were! The aura of mistrust in corporate foods grows daily!

' Why not make that a new labelling law while we are at it? "

Great Idea!

"Even better...Why not pass another law that retailers have to put labels on eggs describing where on the chicken eggs come from. Just part of the information service."

Another good idea! Even better yet, how about letting them know what their food has been eating! ...and how much "dope" it took just to keep them alive to make it to slaughter!

"Enquiring minds want to know."
...as does anyone who gives a shit about their health and wellbeing and that of their kids!

IP: Logged

[Cedar]

"Re labelling: People eat weiners all the time and I dare say there is worse in them than a cloned calf."

Oh???? Can you prove that?????

This is soooo frustrating....better go check on my girls out back....I'll probably hafta punch one of 'em in the nose, though!! grr!

[DiamondSCattleCo]

f_s wrote:

"is there really any difference between a twin calf and a cloned calf?"

Nobody really knows, now do they? For every "advancement" that medical science makes, they ask more questions than they answer. We keep hearing about how things are safe, such as growth hormones and anti-biotics, yet we see odd growth patterns in our children and treatment resistant strains of bacteria/virii all the time. Yet the scientists say they know exactly what they're doing.

Horseshit.

And same with this cloning garbage. Why is it that cloned animals have a shorter lifespan than natural animals? There is obviously a major difference somewhere in physiological makeup. Perhaps you're willing to put your families' hands in the hands of others who have repeatedly demonstrated that they can't be trusted, but the smart man sure as hell wouldn't.

Rod

[farmers_son]

I am wondering how we ever got past Artificially inseminating cows without having a great debate on whether that was natural or not. Maybe there was a debate and it was just before my time. But AI is not natural either and involved quite a significant technological breakthrough. No one gives a second thought to eating a calf that was conceived through AI.

Are we not going to be able to make use of improved technology anymore? Is everything bad? I do not know if agriculture and food production can go back to the 1940s or not.

[smcgrath76]

I think the question is not one of safety. I cannot concieve of a possibility where a clone is not safe to eat. It would not be significantly different than eating an ET calf.
I think there are a couple of issues that are more realistic than food safety here.
1. is it ethical
a) what does large scale cloning do to biodiversity
b) what does cloning do to resilience of the production system
c) where does the role of man working with nature cross paths with man interfering with nature
d) etc., etc., etc.

and
2) do consumers want it

I would prefer not to tick off consumers and be very up front about the issue. Some of the greatest ideas/products in the world aren't neccessarily what people want. Look at Europe and implant free beef as an example, is it that implants are unsafe, or just that people don't want it.
Failing to be upfront with stuff like this can create a huge consumer backlash such as GM foods have shown.

The last thing is does the current path we appear to be on create opportunity for the "natural approach" to production? I believe it does, and I think we have some Agri-Villians (?) that are living proof. However it is a balancing act in terms of product placement and promotion without fear mongering.

I believe in science but I also believe in the consumers' right to have beliefs outside of science, and to be informed. In the internet age it is basically impossible to keep something like cloning out of the public eye.

[grassfarmer]

There is a parallel here with the BSE testing issue. "Sound" science says that cloned animals are safe to produce just like they say there is no need to test for BSE. The thing to remember about scientific findings are that they are not bomb proof. They are often what scientists assess as the most likely scenario given the information they have available at the time. Remember the scientific theory that giving thalidimide to pregnant women to control morning sickness was a good idea?? ... that was "sound science" in it's day too.
As a beef producer I couldn't care less who is "right" on the issue of cloned animal safety, there are only two parts to this question that are relevant to me:
1) I see a marketing opportunity. If the US allows this Canada should ban it and market our beef as guaranteed clone free. I guess like the BSE issue though ABP/CCA would fight tooth and nail to keep our rules the same as the US and to allow "sound science" to prevail.
2) Will adoption of cloned animal production lead to greater net returns for beef producers? If not they can put the science back in the box as far as I'm concerned.

[cakadu]

Who gets to deem what is "improved technology" and what isn't?

Sean is right - while food safety is first and foremost in consumers' minds, there are other considerations and questions that must be answered.

Whose genetics get to be used? Where is the cutoff for what is superior genetics and what isn't? Who has or will have the rights to the genetics? What will be the rules surrounding the use of them? Look at how people have been up in arms about the GM technology and issues surrounding patents etc?

Are we so obsessed with being the lowest cost producer and getting animals to market as quickly as possible that we are forgetting things like, heaven forbid, taste or culture etc?


The one thing that we cannot ever overlook is consumers. As consumers, we have rights and the most important one is to be kept informed. We also have the right to redress and the right to be heard about what is going on.

Ultimately folks will decide with their buying power what will make it in the marketplace and what won't. They must be allowed to make informed decisions.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

"Are we not going to be able to make use of improved technology anymore? Is everything bad? I do not know if agriculture and food production can go back to the 1940s or not."

I wasn't arguing the benefits of improved technology, but rather science's lamentable tendency to rush things out the door without really knowing whether they could be harmful to the environment or the people who use the product. I argue, and with good reason, that many "advances" have been rushed out the door and fast tracked through government approval only to find out later that they are damaging.

I won't trust any "scientist" or "sound science" that places dollars before safety, and there are far more of those types around than there are honest ones.

As far as AI, versus cloning, do AI'ed animals have lower life expectancy than their natural counterparts? No, they do not. The natural cycle is helped along by mating one natural entity (sperm) with another (egg). Cloning isn't even remotely close. And why, f_s, did you ignore my question about the issues surrounding cloned animals? Why do they exhibit shortened life spans? Why is their disease resistance lower? Obviously, the entities that science is creating do NOT exactly match those produced by nature.

Rod

[Willowcreek]

Already a great deal of screaming about the USDA/FDA decisions on cloned beef- and the fact that it will be unlabeled and unable to discern from all other beef...That and the fact that Europe too is screaming about it- already has Congressmen offering up legislation to make it law that it has to be segregated and can not be sold unless labeled as coming from a cloned animal or offspring...

And, like I said in the other thread, thanks to the Chinese, we now live in a period where consumers are asking for labeling and more information on their food products- and I look for this type of law to pass- especially now that we are in an election year- and no politician wants to appear anticonsumer (voter)......

[Willowcreek]

USDA yesterday called for a voluntary hold on the slaughter of all cloned animals or their offspring- until they can get a handle on some type of labeling...

They were catching extreme heat from the politicians-- and are starting to reallize they better quit acting so arrogant and uncaring- as they are very likely going to have to work with the Democrat party that will have control of their purse strings.....

[cakadu]

There is ample evidence about the relative importance of including the consumer in our food production/processing choices - in other words the value chain.

Ottawa Citizen
Sylvain Charlebois
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=5809fb64-3489-487b-aa07-86439ac99472&p=2
When it comes to food labelling and health risks, the Canadian track record implies that we ought to be more vigilant about food science. Consumers are becoming more aware of the food they eat and the facts concerning its ingredients and sources. Markets are more fragmented than ever before and consumers are becoming more sophisticated in their food choices. This is evinced by recent polls suggesting increases in purchases of organic foods and consumer concern about food safety when making purchasing decisions.
Cloning animals for food consumption is not just about factual risks and leveraging an industry's capacity to produce faster and better food. It is also about making the right decisions based on how consumers perceive the risk of eating cloned products.
Consumer welfare should remain the decisive focus of any new policy that introduces a new food product to the market.

We ignore the consumer at our own peril.