COMMENTS: 50
Why We Shouldn't Fear Cloned Meat
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.
People are really freaked out by eating the meat from a clone. They want it labeled so they can choose to buy "naturally reproduced" meat, by which I suppose they mean cows that are the result of forced breeding, that have been raised in stinky, crowded pens where they eat grain mixed with poop and bubblegum. I mean, I can understand not wanting to eat meat at all -- that makes sense. Most farms abuse the hell out of their meat and poultry, and the situation is ugly enough to make you lose your appetite for steak forever.
But cloning? Not so much. It's just a duplicate cow, people. Nobody has added anything weird to it, like snake genes that will make it spit acid. And if the cloned cow is treated well, allowed to roam free and eat decent food, I don't see what the big deal is. Cloning has been used to reproduce tasty breeds of vegetables and fruit for centuries (using cuttings), and it's not likely that animal cloning is going to be any more dangerous.
At least, it won't be more dangerous for people eating the resulting meat. The clones may have crappy lives -- in fact, they probably will, since clones tend to be unhealthier than nonclones anyway. And life in a factory farm isn't exactly healthy either.
Meanwhile, as people chow down on clone steaks or steaks made from the offspring of clones (what do you call them? Paraclones? Miniclones?), a fertility researcher and a biotech company investor are busy cloning themselves. This month's hottest clone news wasn't anything to do with steak. It was the quiet announcement, in the journal Stem Cell, that a company called Stemagen had created viable human embryos from adult skin cells. One of the clones was of Samuel Wood, a guy who runs a fertility clinic next door to Stemagen. Another was of an anonymous investor in Stemagen.
Stemagen claims it won't be turning these embryos into humans anytime soon, even though the clone embryos they wound up with were as viable as any embryo they might implant in a woman undergoing in vitro fertilization treatments. Of course, the company could just be covering its ass: human reproduction through cloning is illegal in the United States. Still, people desperate for children might be willing to try cloning at, say, a fertility clinic next door to a biotech company that does cloning. They would certainly keep their mouths shut about their illegal baby, at least if they wanted to keep it.
Just as I am perplexed by the uproar over eating the meat of animal clones, I'm perplexed by people's discomfort about breeding human clones. Certainly there are ethical issues with creating a human being as part of an experimental procedure. But that doesn't seem like the main objection people are raising. Mostly they're saying that there's something sacrilegious about clones, or something creepy about making babies that don't require any sperm. (Stemagen's method involves taking DNA from a skin cell and popping it into an egg to make an embryo -- no men are required for this procedure.)
Clones are so scary that one of the best sci-fi comic book series of the past few years -- Y: The Last Man (Vertigo), by Brian<0x00A0>K. Vaughan -- takes as its premise the idea that a woman cloning herself sets off a chain of events that kills every man on Earth.
I think the best way to end this hysteria is to start labeling everything that's cloned, from the tomatoes you ate last week to the roses you bought your sweetie on Saturday. Once everyone realizes they have clones in their homes and bellies already, it might make them a lot less fearful when they finally meet a human clone. "Oh yes," they can say. "I've eaten something like that."
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffreyDee on Jan 22, 2008 3:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: one expensive burger
Posted by: dismayed
» There are very few valid comments in this thread.
Posted by: abbadon2007
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jan 22, 2008 4:28 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know that right..?
I thought so..
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cloning plants is different from mammals..
Posted by: aethr
» Cloning (like inbreeding) exponentially increases chance that mutations manifest themselves
Posted by: elfinito
» RE: Cloning (like inbreeding) exponentially increases chance that mutations manifest themselves
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
» RE: Cloning (like inbreeding) exponentially increases chance that mutations manifest themselves
Posted by: Scipio2001
» cloning animals rquires sexual reproduction - FALSE
Posted by: dkm
» RE: identical twins - FALSE
Posted by: lessbread
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chagrilama on Jan 22, 2008 5:40 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, is it going to go wrong so that the next steak will prove fatal to the consumer of the steak? I hope not, but it could happen because cloning is still mostly art, and quite a bit science, and a huge amount of luck.
So the assertion you make "It's just a duplicate cow, people" is simply false. Your other assertion "Clone meat seems like the next logical step" seems just unthoughtful. You write well, please do it, and do it a lot. But your scientific methodologies seem like from the middle ages, when people thought cockroaches grew out of foodstuff.
How about the second part that upsets you - human cloning. Imagine that "little Joey" ends up with four legs and no arms, because of this little misplaced gene on the chromosome. Sure cloning is safe, what's the big deal? Who will take care of "little Joey"? Worse scenarios come to mind: What if "little Joanna" the clone, somehow develops murderous tendencies and it turns out to be a tiny little mistake in the DNA? Was cloning such a good idea?
Maybe there are some good reasons to hold off. Most scientists - especially the ones IN THE FIELD - want nothing to do with human cloning, regardless of the illegality of the process. Ever wonder what they know about the inexact and error-prone process that you do not know?
Anyway, if you must eat meat, enjoy it. If you can go to farmer's markets and buy veggies there - you probably should, and stop eating those cloned beggies brought to you by Big Pharma and their partners Big Ag!
Chagrilama
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» @8)-
Posted by: lamar
» Thank-you and most veggies aren't clones
Posted by: setterwoman
» RE: Thank-you and most veggies aren't clones
Posted by: dkm
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jan 22, 2008 7:12 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Attack of the Clones
Posted by: launcher
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 22, 2008 8:12 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll partake!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TerryS on Jan 23, 2008 12:54 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"People are freaked out by the FDA's
ruling that cloned meat is safe to eat,
but we eat cloned plants all the time."
The difference is that the cloned
plants don't suffer because of the
cloning.
Because animal cloning is still at
such a primitive stage, suffering
is a real result of cloning.
How could that be?
As most people know, the sperm fertilizes
the ovum. But it turns out that the ovum,
in addition to containing genes, also
regulates the developing fetus.
Without the ovum to regulate the development
of the fetus, all sorts of developmental
problems result. Namely:
"Recent cloning research also reveals high
failure rates, premature deaths, and such
abnormalities as intestinal blockages;
diabetes; shortened tendons; deformed
feet; weakened immune systems; dysfunctional
hearts, brains, livers, and kidneys;
respiratory distress; and circulatory
problems. A 2003 review of cloning
procedures in cattle found that less
than 5 percent of all cloned embryos
transferred into recipient cows survived,
and a review published in 2005 confirmed
that there has been no noticeable increase
in efficiency. Surrogate mothers used in
farm animal cloning research also suffer
from reduced welfare from fetal overgrowth,
repeated surgeries and injections, and
pregnancy complications that have resulted
in death."
The result is increased suffering:
"However, members of the FDA's own Veterinary
Medicine Advisory Committee felt that the
agency had not adequately characterized the
risk to animals and raised concerns about the
level of animal suffering potentially caused
by cloning. As recently as June 2005, an FDA
representative stated that cloned animals were
more likely to suffer birth defects and health
problems when very young, demonstrating these
problems have not been resolved."
HSUS Report
See also:
Dolly's arthritis raises fear of fast ageing in clones
But most animal rights advocates question the ethics of experiments that claim a high number of casualties to produce a single clone.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Animal Cloning Increases Suffering - Plant Cloning Does Not
Posted by: launcher
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rawles on Jan 23, 2008 4:29 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eat your cloned hamburger - it might as well be soylent green - - - - -
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: carlos-raul
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: d_eft on Jan 23, 2008 5:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments can be submitted until 25 February 2008.
"No environmental impact is foreseen as a result of animal cloning' !!!!!
Leaving aside the ethical concerns, instead of raising more (cloned or not) cattle and pigs, they should use more fields to grow more 'bio' plants: potatoes, soya and any other vegetable.
best for environment, planet, public health, animal welfare, impact on global warming etc etc etc.
odd is that EU doesn't accept the GM plants but encourages the GM animals - animal suffering is so unimportant!
www.efsa.europa.eu
since is a public consultation, please send your comments.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: heid on Jan 23, 2008 5:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reality is that the whole concept is horribly flawed, right from the beginning, including those cloned things that she already eats, even cloning's precursor, hybrids.
It's all part of agribusiness, the concept that anything is okay, as long as it's profitable for big businesses to make more and more money. What it does to the environment is irrelevant. What it does to destroy health is irrelevant. But agribusiness (and pharma and so forth) has done a brilliant job in dumbing down the thinking processes of most people, of making the base line from which people start their assumptions something that's false.
Cloning comes out of ignoring nature's truths. It comes from not acknowledging that we've opened ourselves to a host of toxins that are destroying health. That mass-produced food is becoming empty of nutrients. That mass-produced food results in horrific routine torture of animals. That mass-produced food puts the entire food system at risk from complete destruction by disease. Monoculture alone increases that risk hugely.
The Great Potato Famine of Ireland in the 19th century, which decimated its population so that it's just now recovering from it, is a case in point. Monoculture resulted in the loss of the potato crop. This is the early form of monoculture - before most hybridization or cloning, simply the result of limiting the varieties of potatoes grown to one or two easy-to-grow varieties in large-scale farming. What we're set up for now is infinitely more dangerous.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» YES!: This article is indicative of the problem.
Posted by: newmoonnaturals
» RE: YES!: This article is indicative of the problem.
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lamar on Jan 23, 2008 6:26 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fear alleviated by labeling
Posted by: tarheel
» RE: Fear alleviated by labeling
Posted by: tarheel
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edraven on Jan 23, 2008 6:28 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are really stupid.
Ed Graham
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: plantsareneat on Jan 23, 2008 6:40 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grn1 on Jan 23, 2008 8:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NEW ORLEANS, June 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Monsanto recently announced its intentions to give $50,000 to the Agriculture in the Classroom (AITC) Consortium. The announcement was made at the National Agriculture in the Classroom Conference in New Orleans. AITC is a grassroots student educational program coordinated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) with chapters in all states and territories. State AITC programs address the need for agriculture literacy at the K-12 student level, with innovative curricular efforts designed specifically to reach non-traditional agriculture students.
Start em young, with a good ejucation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone on Jan 23, 2008 9:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a complex issue. Even if we adults are cavalier about what we choose to put in our bodies, we have no business putting our children's health and longevity at risk unnecessarily. Only fools would do that, especially when the only reason is putting ever fatter profits in the pockets of big business.
We need to fight this here in the US and all over the world. We have to put intense pressure on our politicians to exert some control over the process before it's too late. And join d_eft's call to do the same thing in Europe.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tchii on Jan 23, 2008 11:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Unable to see the future past the extent of their noses" will be the title of a headline in the future that describes an environmental catastrophe that we are setting up for.
What exactly is DNA? How did it come about? In this complex (and natural) world, things evolved and developed together in an extraordinarily complex way. To ignore what this means and take pieces here and there and manipulate them and think there are going to be no consequences involves thinking in an extraordinarily idiotic way. Congratulations Annalee you just joined the ei group.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reidhaus on Jan 23, 2008 11:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Jan 23, 2008 12:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Of course... all the technology that got us this far...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» agree that meat can be grown WITHOUT the animal
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: redgreenbrown on Jan 23, 2008 12:12 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plant cloning - growing cuttings - is entirely a different beast to animal cloning. During animal cloning there is a significant possibility of genetic scrambling. This occurs during the creation of an artificial 'ova' and is the result of the interventions in the reproductive process by various means, to induce a cell to do something it was not programmed to do - to become an 'egg'.
I may eat scrambled eggs, but i am as unlikely to eat cloned meat as i am to buy a scrambled argument in support of a scrambled concept. Cloning animals sucks, big time for so many technical, scientific as well as ethical, moral and spritual reasons that there is not enough space here to cover them all.
It all boils down to choice, just like GM plant foods. If you want to eat them be my guest. But give those who choose not to, the means to select food that is produced in the way they wish to eat it. A kosher sausage or carrot is no different to a normal one, but the choice is there.
By the by, cloned meat has snuck into the US food system quite a few times in the past anyway. Seewww.nature.com/nbt/journal/v19/n7/full/nbt0701_607.html for more. There are other cases of accidental experimental animals entering the market.
So now the government of the US has decreed that cloned animals, no matter what they were cloned for or what deletions, transscriptions or scrambling may be known to have occured in their genetic makeup, can enter the global food chain? And thats a good idea? I think not, again for far too many reasons to state here save to say that contamination of the global food supply by non-permitted GM plants has occured several times.
Mz Newitz and her fellow cloned meat supporters should examine this issue a bit more critically rather than glibly dismiss concerns.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JLPearson on Jan 23, 2008 5:26 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Darian on Jan 23, 2008 5:37 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dismissing the numerous ethical issues that surround cloning with a casual characterization of it's critics as squeamish people who are vaguely opposed to "something sacrilegious" is completely vacuous. To bring up exaggerated, science-fiction scenario fears over cloning is also a rather hackneyed rhetorical device to diminish legitimate criticism of real-life cloning.
I used to think Annalee Newitz was being ironic à la Steven Colbert, by making conspicuously weak arguments for the opposition as a way of advancing her true views. This article has me half convinced she's just a bad PR flack.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggielady on Jan 23, 2008 6:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the green revolution,with it's chemical solutions(toxic)...to what they now call themselves, life science companies,comes the gene revolution.
I do not want to feed my family genetically engineered foods or cloned animal products.
This is not about science for me but more of a moral and spiritual issue.
These products need to be LABELED so those of us who find this an abomination can steer clear.
Who gave these corporations ownership or the right to contaminate "OUR" food supply.
NOT IN MY NAME!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xvictor on Jan 23, 2008 7:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mikeoregon on Jan 23, 2008 11:08 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Who Will Own the Genomes? thx
Posted by: johnclark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 24, 2008 9:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really dumb arguments and even weaker logic in play, Annalee. Stick to tech, and leave the biotech to science.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 25, 2008 6:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Grow it in a lab and roll it out like carpet.
I, for one, will remain vegan no matter what the future holds for meat. But growing it without the animal is certainly the most humane choice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Science must create the meat without the animal
Posted by: redgreenbrown
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cajel2 on Jan 25, 2008 9:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 28, 2008 9:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps there is nothing to worry about, but with all the things that have gone wrong with normal foods over the last couple years and the quickness with which products are pushed into the market I am simply not willing to take the chance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreenSangha on Jan 28, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we clone cows for meat, then we are interrupting the natural process of evolution which develops certain traits and causes others to go extinct. Haven't we learned by now that we really can't substitute our wisdom for the complex interaction of genetic factors that cause natural selection. And if we clone generation after generation of cows without natural genetic selection shaping it as a genetically complex species, how is the inherent "cowness" of the creature affected? Is it still even a cow?
I am not at all anti-science, and I am not a religious fundamentalist. But I do read a lot about genetic manipulation of plants (see Vandana Shiva's writings) and the outcomes of trying to patent and control natural processes and I think cloning is man's hubris at its pinnacle.
From an animal rights perspective, our feedlots are atrocious and cause tremendous suffering and our addiction to meat is helping destroy the planet. I do not expect that cloned animals, if they were mass produced, would suffer any less. AS a matter of fact, the idea that we "create" the life for its value as a product might remove us even farther from the place where we can respect that dignity of the animal in its own right - separate from its production value.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffreyDee on Jan 22, 2008 3:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: one expensive burger
Posted by: dismayed
» There are very few valid comments in this thread.
Posted by: abbadon2007
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jan 22, 2008 4:28 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know that right..?
I thought so..
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cloning plants is different from mammals..
Posted by: aethr
» Cloning (like inbreeding) exponentially increases chance that mutations manifest themselves
Posted by: elfinito
» RE: Cloning (like inbreeding) exponentially increases chance that mutations manifest themselves
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
» RE: Cloning (like inbreeding) exponentially increases chance that mutations manifest themselves
Posted by: Scipio2001
» cloning animals rquires sexual reproduction - FALSE
Posted by: dkm
» RE: identical twins - FALSE
Posted by: lessbread
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chagrilama on Jan 22, 2008 5:40 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, is it going to go wrong so that the next steak will prove fatal to the consumer of the steak? I hope not, but it could happen because cloning is still mostly art, and quite a bit science, and a huge amount of luck.
So the assertion you make "It's just a duplicate cow, people" is simply false. Your other assertion "Clone meat seems like the next logical step" seems just unthoughtful. You write well, please do it, and do it a lot. But your scientific methodologies seem like from the middle ages, when people thought cockroaches grew out of foodstuff.
How about the second part that upsets you - human cloning. Imagine that "little Joey" ends up with four legs and no arms, because of this little misplaced gene on the chromosome. Sure cloning is safe, what's the big deal? Who will take care of "little Joey"? Worse scenarios come to mind: What if "little Joanna" the clone, somehow develops murderous tendencies and it turns out to be a tiny little mistake in the DNA? Was cloning such a good idea?
Maybe there are some good reasons to hold off. Most scientists - especially the ones IN THE FIELD - want nothing to do with human cloning, regardless of the illegality of the process. Ever wonder what they know about the inexact and error-prone process that you do not know?
Anyway, if you must eat meat, enjoy it. If you can go to farmer's markets and buy veggies there - you probably should, and stop eating those cloned beggies brought to you by Big Pharma and their partners Big Ag!
Chagrilama
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» @8)-
Posted by: lamar
» Thank-you and most veggies aren't clones
Posted by: setterwoman
» RE: Thank-you and most veggies aren't clones
Posted by: dkm
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jan 22, 2008 7:12 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Attack of the Clones
Posted by: launcher
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 22, 2008 8:12 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll partake!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TerryS on Jan 23, 2008 12:54 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"People are freaked out by the FDA's
ruling that cloned meat is safe to eat,
but we eat cloned plants all the time."
The difference is that the cloned
plants don't suffer because of the
cloning.
Because animal cloning is still at
such a primitive stage, suffering
is a real result of cloning.
How could that be?
As most people know, the sperm fertilizes
the ovum. But it turns out that the ovum,
in addition to containing genes, also
regulates the developing fetus.
Without the ovum to regulate the development
of the fetus, all sorts of developmental
problems result. Namely:
"Recent cloning research also reveals high
failure rates, premature deaths, and such
abnormalities as intestinal blockages;
diabetes; shortened tendons; deformed
feet; weakened immune systems; dysfunctional
hearts, brains, livers, and kidneys;
respiratory distress; and circulatory
problems. A 2003 review of cloning
procedures in cattle found that less
than 5 percent of all cloned embryos
transferred into recipient cows survived,
and a review published in 2005 confirmed
that there has been no noticeable increase
in efficiency. Surrogate mothers used in
farm animal cloning research also suffer
from reduced welfare from fetal overgrowth,
repeated surgeries and injections, and
pregnancy complications that have resulted
in death."
The result is increased suffering:
"However, members of the FDA's own Veterinary
Medicine Advisory Committee felt that the
agency had not adequately characterized the
risk to animals and raised concerns about the
level of animal suffering potentially caused
by cloning. As recently as June 2005, an FDA
representative stated that cloned animals were
more likely to suffer birth defects and health
problems when very young, demonstrating these
problems have not been resolved."
HSUS Report
See also:
Dolly's arthritis raises fear of fast ageing in clones
But most animal rights advocates question the ethics of experiments that claim a high number of casualties to produce a single clone.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Animal Cloning Increases Suffering - Plant Cloning Does Not
Posted by: launcher
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rawles on Jan 23, 2008 4:29 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eat your cloned hamburger - it might as well be soylent green - - - - -
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: carlos-raul
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: d_eft on Jan 23, 2008 5:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments can be submitted until 25 February 2008.
"No environmental impact is foreseen as a result of animal cloning' !!!!!
Leaving aside the ethical concerns, instead of raising more (cloned or not) cattle and pigs, they should use more fields to grow more 'bio' plants: potatoes, soya and any other vegetable.
best for environment, planet, public health, animal welfare, impact on global warming etc etc etc.
odd is that EU doesn't accept the GM plants but encourages the GM animals - animal suffering is so unimportant!
www.efsa.europa.eu
since is a public consultation, please send your comments.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: heid on Jan 23, 2008 5:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reality is that the whole concept is horribly flawed, right from the beginning, including those cloned things that she already eats, even cloning's precursor, hybrids.
It's all part of agribusiness, the concept that anything is okay, as long as it's profitable for big businesses to make more and more money. What it does to the environment is irrelevant. What it does to destroy health is irrelevant. But agribusiness (and pharma and so forth) has done a brilliant job in dumbing down the thinking processes of most people, of making the base line from which people start their assumptions something that's false.
Cloning comes out of ignoring nature's truths. It comes from not acknowledging that we've opened ourselves to a host of toxins that are destroying health. That mass-produced food is becoming empty of nutrients. That mass-produced food results in horrific routine torture of animals. That mass-produced food puts the entire food system at risk from complete destruction by disease. Monoculture alone increases that risk hugely.
The Great Potato Famine of Ireland in the 19th century, which decimated its population so that it's just now recovering from it, is a case in point. Monoculture resulted in the loss of the potato crop. This is the early form of monoculture - before most hybridization or cloning, simply the result of limiting the varieties of potatoes grown to one or two easy-to-grow varieties in large-scale farming. What we're set up for now is infinitely more dangerous.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» YES!: This article is indicative of the problem.
Posted by: newmoonnaturals
» RE: YES!: This article is indicative of the problem.
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lamar on Jan 23, 2008 6:26 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fear alleviated by labeling
Posted by: tarheel
» RE: Fear alleviated by labeling
Posted by: tarheel
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edraven on Jan 23, 2008 6:28 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are really stupid.
Ed Graham
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: plantsareneat on Jan 23, 2008 6:40 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grn1 on Jan 23, 2008 8:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NEW ORLEANS, June 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Monsanto recently announced its intentions to give $50,000 to the Agriculture in the Classroom (AITC) Consortium. The announcement was made at the National Agriculture in the Classroom Conference in New Orleans. AITC is a grassroots student educational program coordinated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) with chapters in all states and territories. State AITC programs address the need for agriculture literacy at the K-12 student level, with innovative curricular efforts designed specifically to reach non-traditional agriculture students.
Start em young, with a good ejucation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone on Jan 23, 2008 9:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a complex issue. Even if we adults are cavalier about what we choose to put in our bodies, we have no business putting our children's health and longevity at risk unnecessarily. Only fools would do that, especially when the only reason is putting ever fatter profits in the pockets of big business.
We need to fight this here in the US and all over the world. We have to put intense pressure on our politicians to exert some control over the process before it's too late. And join d_eft's call to do the same thing in Europe.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tchii on Jan 23, 2008 11:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Unable to see the future past the extent of their noses" will be the title of a headline in the future that describes an environmental catastrophe that we are setting up for.
What exactly is DNA? How did it come about? In this complex (and natural) world, things evolved and developed together in an extraordinarily complex way. To ignore what this means and take pieces here and there and manipulate them and think there are going to be no consequences involves thinking in an extraordinarily idiotic way. Congratulations Annalee you just joined the ei group.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reidhaus on Jan 23, 2008 11:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Jan 23, 2008 12:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Of course... all the technology that got us this far...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» agree that meat can be grown WITHOUT the animal
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: redgreenbrown on Jan 23, 2008 12:12 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plant cloning - growing cuttings - is entirely a different beast to animal cloning. During animal cloning there is a significant possibility of genetic scrambling. This occurs during the creation of an artificial 'ova' and is the result of the interventions in the reproductive process by various means, to induce a cell to do something it was not programmed to do - to become an 'egg'.
I may eat scrambled eggs, but i am as unlikely to eat cloned meat as i am to buy a scrambled argument in support of a scrambled concept. Cloning animals sucks, big time for so many technical, scientific as well as ethical, moral and spritual reasons that there is not enough space here to cover them all.
It all boils down to choice, just like GM plant foods. If you want to eat them be my guest. But give those who choose not to, the means to select food that is produced in the way they wish to eat it. A kosher sausage or carrot is no different to a normal one, but the choice is there.
By the by, cloned meat has snuck into the US food system quite a few times in the past anyway. Seewww.nature.com/nbt/journal/v19/n7/full/nbt0701_607.html for more. There are other cases of accidental experimental animals entering the market.
So now the government of the US has decreed that cloned animals, no matter what they were cloned for or what deletions, transscriptions or scrambling may be known to have occured in their genetic makeup, can enter the global food chain? And thats a good idea? I think not, again for far too many reasons to state here save to say that contamination of the global food supply by non-permitted GM plants has occured several times.
Mz Newitz and her fellow cloned meat supporters should examine this issue a bit more critically rather than glibly dismiss concerns.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JLPearson on Jan 23, 2008 5:26 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Darian on Jan 23, 2008 5:37 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dismissing the numerous ethical issues that surround cloning with a casual characterization of it's critics as squeamish people who are vaguely opposed to "something sacrilegious" is completely vacuous. To bring up exaggerated, science-fiction scenario fears over cloning is also a rather hackneyed rhetorical device to diminish legitimate criticism of real-life cloning.
I used to think Annalee Newitz was being ironic à la Steven Colbert, by making conspicuously weak arguments for the opposition as a way of advancing her true views. This article has me half convinced she's just a bad PR flack.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggielady on Jan 23, 2008 6:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the green revolution,with it's chemical solutions(toxic)...to what they now call themselves, life science companies,comes the gene revolution.
I do not want to feed my family genetically engineered foods or cloned animal products.
This is not about science for me but more of a moral and spiritual issue.
These products need to be LABELED so those of us who find this an abomination can steer clear.
Who gave these corporations ownership or the right to contaminate "OUR" food supply.
NOT IN MY NAME!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xvictor on Jan 23, 2008 7:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mikeoregon on Jan 23, 2008 11:08 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Who Will Own the Genomes? thx
Posted by: johnclark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 24, 2008 9:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really dumb arguments and even weaker logic in play, Annalee. Stick to tech, and leave the biotech to science.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 25, 2008 6:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Grow it in a lab and roll it out like carpet.
I, for one, will remain vegan no matter what the future holds for meat. But growing it without the animal is certainly the most humane choice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Science must create the meat without the animal
Posted by: redgreenbrown
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cajel2 on Jan 25, 2008 9:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 28, 2008 9:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps there is nothing to worry about, but with all the things that have gone wrong with normal foods over the last couple years and the quickness with which products are pushed into the market I am simply not willing to take the chance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreenSangha on Jan 28, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we clone cows for meat, then we are interrupting the natural process of evolution which develops certain traits and causes others to go extinct. Haven't we learned by now that we really can't substitute our wisdom for the complex interaction of genetic factors that cause natural selection. And if we clone generation after generation of cows without natural genetic selection shaping it as a genetically complex species, how is the inherent "cowness" of the creature affected? Is it still even a cow?
I am not at all anti-science, and I am not a religious fundamentalist. But I do read a lot about genetic manipulation of plants (see Vandana Shiva's writings) and the outcomes of trying to patent and control natural processes and I think cloning is man's hubris at its pinnacle.
From an animal rights perspective, our feedlots are atrocious and cause tremendous suffering and our addiction to meat is helping destroy the planet. I do not expect that cloned animals, if they were mass produced, would suffer any less. AS a matter of fact, the idea that we "create" the life for its value as a product might remove us even farther from the place where we can respect that dignity of the animal in its own right - separate from its production value.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us
One of the Most Common Chemicals Used in Modern Life Is Now Being Seen as a Health Threat




