Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Are You Eating Cloned Beef?

By Alec Baldwin, Huffington Post. Posted January 18, 2008.


The FDA has just announced that cloned meat is safe to eat. Really?

On the same day that Starbucks announces that it will no longer offer organic milk to customers at its 15,000 stores, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that cloned animals are safe to eat.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the "voluntary moratorium" observed by farmers on the sale of cloned animal products and that of their offspring has been lifted. "This is a milestone," declared Mark Walton, president of Viagen in Austin, Texas, a leading livestock cloning company.

But a milestone for what? At a time when government agencies should be working in unison on a plan to reduce carbon emissions in the environment from as many sources as possible, the FDA's cloning decision is a bad one. The carbon footprint of the beef industry is an enormous one. From livestocking to slaughter to meatpacking and then retail sales in grocery stores or restaurants, beef production is a part of the looming, energy-driven environmental disaster. Now the industry wants to sell more of what they are claiming will be a better-engineered cow.

The fact that cloned mammals have only existed for just over a decade and that research by consumer advocacy groups does not yet support their introduction into the food supply is another, equally disturbing concern. Many in Congress also oppose the FDA ruling.

Overall, Americans need to eat less, not more meat, especially from cloned animal products, whose impact on consumers' health is uncertain. Excessive consumption of meat products is clearly linked to heart disease and the consumption of large and consistent quantities of fast food meals is considered a major cause of obesity in America. In classic FDA tradition, the government also announced that it would not require labeling of cloned products, just as it bowed to pressure from the dairy industry over the labeling of organic milk products and the presence of BGH.

What effect will BGH or pesticides, fungicides and herbicides in their own grain supply or antibiotics to treat conditions like mastitis in cattle have on cloned animals? Tell your Congressman to tell the FDA, "You go first."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: beef, cattle, clones, genetic engineering, fda, cloned mean

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nope... I'm not.
Posted by: Xynyx on Jan 18, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not eating any beef. It all has the same effect on the environment. It's all pretty much non-sustainable... largely because there are too damned many people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nope... I'm not. Posted by: mhhensel
Science??
Posted by: Navin R Johnson on Jan 18, 2008 12:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can anyone please provide a science based explanation providing reason to suspect that a cloned animal is unhealthy to eat?

While I understand the ethical aspects and believe strongly they should be weighed there seems to be big misconceptions out there about the health risks.

Honestly almost all of the fruit and vegetables grown on the planet are "clones" - genetically identical to their originator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Science?? Posted by: slothman
» RE: Science?? Posted by: Ian MacLeod
What is the link? Is there one?
Posted by: lamar on Jan 18, 2008 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there anything linking cloned meat to disease that isn't presented with normal meat? There may be environmental concerns with beef, but none have anything to do with the issue of cloning. Is there an enviro-cloning nexus that I am missing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Focus On Wrong Issue
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Jan 18, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're an environmentalist, you don't eat beef and you oppose ALL cloning.

The cattle industry has turned the grasslands of the western U.S. into deserts and is the most destructive industry BY FAR in this part of the country. Additionally, cattle ranching is, along with logging, the main reason for destruction of tropical rainforests in Latin America, notably the Amazon.

Cloning is nothing short of Nazi science, because in order to breed organisms it wants, it changes natural evolutionary processes into processes controlled by humans, just as the Nazis were trying to breed the master race. The problems with things like cloning and genetic engineering may not be anything that can be identified by reductionist thinking; the problem is instead that humans are trying to play god. By doing this, we jeopardize all life on Earth, as we will never know enough to do these things without risks of severe consequences that we can't even imagine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cloning and the fundamental issue of livestock culture
Posted by: jackpine savage on Jan 19, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the cloned cow was safe to eat, the clone would be safe to eat. Period.

That's not to say that there are not severe issues to be considered. First, a herd of genetically identical cows will be much more susceptible to pathogens. This goes hand in glove with the fact that cloning basically arrests natural selection, but cloning a cow does not arrest the evolution of bacteria, parasites, viruses, etc. Second, odd things start to happen if you clone a clone (at least with plants).

Slightly aside from the issue of cloning, this environmental concern connected with livestock is misinformed. The way that we currently raise livestock IS disgusting and horribly damaging to the environment. But it is also a rather new phenomenon.

Livestock raising is not an environmental problem in and of itself. How we raise livestock is the problem. Grass feeding, i.e. grazing, is actually very beneficial. It requires little industrial input; it produces a healthier animal and healthier meat; and the process actually builds topsoil, reduces water usage, and decreases methane production...all that and there's no issue of dealing with the raw manure because the cows plant in on the field.

You can go to eatwild.org to find farms near you. Support your local farmers who are personally invested in their land and their product.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hyperbole
Posted by: avacyn on Jan 21, 2008 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cloned beef has been on the market for several years. Also cloned chicken, turkey and pork. Until recently there was no requirement that the animal, milk or the meat be labeled as cloned. No one has commented or known the difference. Its good business for the farmers to reproduce proven dairy and beef animals. The idea that there is a health risk to the consumer strikes me headline grabbing. The author of the article didn't seem to do ANY homework on the subject. No research on any possible health risks from cloned meat of any kind was presented.

Whether or not beef or any other kind of farming is sustainable is another kind of argument and not really pertinent to this article, although, truthfully, if you look at the overall picture, ANY monocropping practices, especially soy production, are as bad if not worse for the environment than animal factory farms. The rain forests of Brazil are falling to the production of soy (which is the 4th largest subsidized crop in the US and of questionable use as a food source.) People who are claiming to be vegetarians in order to support sustainable world environment who are eating soy products and anything but locally grown produce are part of the problem they are trying to solve.

Don't even get me started on the production of soy and corn for biodiesel. Look into the numbers on that you and see that overall the CO2 footprint won't be improved from the use of petrochemicals. Check out the impressive research on the use of alga for biodiesel production. The alga cleans the air of waste products before being made into clean fuel. Not popular because its not a government subsidized crop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Starbucks is Green?
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jan 21, 2008 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ever notice how Seattle's Starbucks seems to push a really positive community & green agenda?

...but... let's think back, shall we?

to ... Seattle 1999.

& the WTO protests...

ah M. had it right... imagine the strength it takes under such conditions & to create change without violence... to be a pacifist.

but doing the hard thing always works out in the end, right?

"we started to weave our way through the road blocks that they had set up...
I looked around and I could see that people were afraid and at that point I said that's not fear in your gut or your throat that's really your first taste of freedom "
~ This is What Democracy Looks Like, Hop Hopkins, Brown Collective



~~~
Spread Love,

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ovid..your well read. Posted by: wittler youth
CLONING IS NOT ALL IT IS CRACKED UP TO BE. THE SHEEP, DOLLY, HAD
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 24, 2008 12:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
80 or more siblings that had to be destroyed or were still born. We probably needn't fear much, mother nature still does a job of culling out the weak and unsuitable. They just simply don't survive. Cloning is too expensive for production. It is currently only used for breeeding stock. Of course, breeding stock eventually ages. It doesn't go to the grave; it goes to the slaughter house.

Many breeders select and avoid cloning. Natural variability is actually greater. If you need fear anything, it would be that a naturally occuring mutation might not be caught. Naturally occuring mutations usually just die, often at birth. If it is strange, it will look strange. If it looks strange, don't eat it. Don't worry; it won't take a mental giant to recogize it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's cloning, got to do, got to do with it?
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 11, 2008 7:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, author. Your point is made. Beef is bad for you. It is bad for the environment. We all know that, and it has never been in dispute.

Instead of pushing your actual thoughts, you are pretending that you are against cloning, when in reality, you are just against eating meat.

Be a little bit more honest, or a LOT more subtle, will ya?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]