Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Why We Shouldn't Fear Cloned Meat

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted January 22, 2008.


People are freaked out by the FDA's ruling that cloned meat is safe to eat, but we eat cloned plants all the time.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I'm looking forward to eating my first clone hamburger. I mean, why not? I eat cloned plants all the time, and I admire cloned flowers. Clone meat seems like the next logical step. And yet I can't tell you how many bizarre conversations I've had with people over the past few days about the apparently controversial move by the Food and Drug Administration this month to approve meat from cloned cows as a foodstuff.

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."




Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: fda, clones, cloned meat

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who would rather eat a cloned cow than a factory-farmed anything. Also, she isn't interested in eating cloned human babies, no matter how cute they are.

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


Advertisement
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:
one expensive burger
Posted by: jeffreyDee on Jan 22, 2008 3:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since it costs about $15,000 to clone a cow I don't think that anyone will be eating them anytime soon.

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

» RE: one expensive burger Posted by: dismayed
Cloning plants is different from mammals..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jan 22, 2008 4:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you clone after the first time you get mutations when your talking about mammalian DNA..

You know that right..?

I thought so..

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

» RE: identical twins - FALSE Posted by: lessbread
Among Experts :-) ...
Posted by: chagrilama on Jan 22, 2008 5:40 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So when I saw the title I realized we witnessed a momentous change: Annalee Newitz has now become a genetics expert! Well, not really. I did not think that, and neither is Ms. Newitz an expert in genetics and cloning, nor am I. But I did read extensively on the subject. And, Ms. Newitz - you are plain misguided. You claim clone plants are not dangerous because you have eaten them and are still here. That is about as scientific as Intelligent Design. The fact remains that the cloning process manually (or some industrial equivalent process) takes genetic material and places it in the "growing ground" (cow's womb in the case of beef). There is quite a bit more to the process, such as preparation of the cell to be grown into a full cow, the hormonal "cocktail" in the recipient mother-cow to prep her for her "new baby", and more. But all this manual processing - while very well researched - may miss something, and MANY TIMES DOES. That is the reason that many clones never survive, in much larger numbers than the regular population. Something can, and almost always goes wrong, somewhere.

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
The Real Risk Nobody is Addressing
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jan 22, 2008 7:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is probably true that cloned meat is, per se, safe to eat. However, there is something that no one is addressing. In today's intensive factory farming, where large numbers of animals are fed and housed in close quarters, disease spreads rapidly. Most of the emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, and herds with much less genetic diversity are far more prone to epidemics. All animals, like all humans, vary in their natural resistance to different pathogens, and a herd of one or only a few genotypes would share vulnerablity. Given that deaths have already occured due to Salmonella, E coli H7:O157 and Mad Cow Disease, this is a risk we can ill afford to take.

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

» Attack of the Clones Posted by: launcher
Eating cloned meat is pretty much a yawner.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 22, 2008 8:12 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like taking a "cloned insulin shot". There are faster, cheaper ways of making the things we would like to have.

I'll partake!

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

Animal Cloning Increases Suffering - Plant Cloning Does Not
Posted by: TerryS on Jan 23, 2008 12:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Annalee Newitz writes:

"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]

carlos-raul
Posted by: rawles on Jan 23, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently read a study about cats being fed a nutritionally deficient diet for three generations that documented health and genetic disorders.

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
please leave comments here - animal cloning
Posted by: d_eft on Jan 23, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)launched a public consultation on its draft scientific opinion on the implications of animal cloning on food safety, animal health and welfare and the environment.
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]

This article is indicative of the problem.
Posted by: heid on Jan 23, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author has simply gone along with the easy way of thinking: It's done in other arenas, so why not here? Besides, it's just so boring to even have to think about it.

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]

Fear alleviated by labeling
Posted by: lamar on Jan 23, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To all the fearmongers: where's the study that says these foods are dangerous? The Europeans approved cloned meat as well. Perhaps a labeling requirement is in order. What is probably inappropriate is government prohibition on something based on fear and wild imaginations.

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

I agree with everything you said...
Posted by: edraven on Jan 23, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but, it made me hungry.

People are really stupid.

Ed Graham

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

Plants ARE different.
Posted by: plantsareneat on Jan 23, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The difference is that plants, when you take cuttings, will sprout roots naturally. Sure, lots of techniques and products have been developed to make the cuttings smaller and the rooting faster, but the natural ability to reproduce asexually still exists in plants. There are no mammals that reproduce asexually, which makes cloning them inherently unnatural. I'm not necessarily against the cloning, I'm against the lack of testing for safety and deliberate move to obscure the origins of a food. The same goes for genetically modified corn and soy - little testing and no labeling means you can't make an informed choice about what you put in your body.

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

Philanthropy from their website
Posted by: grn1 on Jan 23, 2008 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Monsanto Extends $50,000 gift to the Agriculture in the Classroom Consortium
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]

WHOA, Nellie (er, Annalee)!!
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone on Jan 23, 2008 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newitz herself touches on one of the key unknowns as we contemplate ingesting cloned meats: "...clones tend to be unhealthier than nonclones anyway". Cloned animals (the few which survive to birth) are sicker, have many more defects and mutations, and die far younger than their naturally-spawned counterparts. We're idiots if we don't investigate the reasons why, before we start feeding such suspect meat to our children!

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]

God have people gotten stupid
Posted by: tchii on Jan 23, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scientists of this present day will be remembered for their complete and utter stupidity.
"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]

cloned meat vs. cloned plants
Posted by: reidhaus on Jan 23, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you don't see the glaring and significant differences between cloned meat and cloned plants, then you should really should stick to writing about subjects you know about - because this obviously isn't one of them.

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

Cloned animals are but a first step
Posted by: willymack on Jan 23, 2008 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To eliminating the animals altogether. Once the techniques for mass producing animal tissue are perfected, no more animals need to be slaughtered or even used as laboratory animals. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's where we're headed.

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

Lazy thinking...
Posted by: redgreenbrown on Jan 23, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My question is whether the writer is guilty of lazy thinking - or for that matter of failing to think at all?
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]

Most plants are capable of healthy asexual reproduction, most animals are not
Posted by: JLPearson on Jan 23, 2008 5:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Annalee, when you can cut the leg off of a cow, stick it in the soil, and grow a whole new cow the same way you can take a leafy branch off of a tomato plant, stick it in the soil, and grow a whole new tomato plant, you let me and the rest of the hungry world know about your wonderful breakthrough, OK? Until then, please leave the writing of scientific articles to those people who have a deeper understanding of basic botany and biology than that offered in high school.

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

Embarrassingly Weak Editorial
Posted by: Darian on Jan 23, 2008 5:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The acts of cloning a plant and cloning a mammal are so dissimilar that they hardly deserve the same name. Many plants can be cloned by cutting off a piece of the plant and sticking it in soil. Try that with a cow. Brushing off the issue of animal cloning as equivalent to plant cloning is an obvious oversimplification.

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]

Give me a break!
Posted by: veggielady on Jan 23, 2008 6:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our genetic heritage is being looted and stolen.
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]

A cow and a head of lettuce are not the same thing......
Posted by: xvictor on Jan 23, 2008 7:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
although people do vegetate!!!!

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

Who Will Own the Genomes?
Posted by: mikeoregon on Jan 23, 2008 11:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the biggest problems with cloned plants and genetically modified seeds is that big corporations own all the rights to them and they aggressively exert their control. In the case of cloned animals, who will own the genomes? Individual farmers or big corporations?

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

plant cloning?!
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 24, 2008 9:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um cuttings aren't cloning, at least not in the same way meat/mammals are cloned.

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]

Science must create the meat without the animal
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 25, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Science must create the meat without the animal in controlled laboratories. Just create the tissue. NO animal suffering, no need for feeding, watering, drugging or cleaning the waste of the animal. Free up millions of acres of farmland world wide, reforest the world, save billions of gallons of oil and water..etc...

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]

Remember Dolly?
Posted by: cajel2 on Jan 25, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first cloned sheep died before its time. Apparently cloned animals age faster for some unknown reason. Do you really feel comfortable eating such an animal? The choice is not between eating factory farmed animals or cloned animals. The decision is whether or not to participate in, and support, corrupt practices in agriculture. If you vote no, you can eat organics and support taking back control of the food supply from agribusiness.

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

another problem
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 28, 2008 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another troubling problem with GM foods is what is going on now with labeling. They don't want to label cloned meat, and there is a fight on to BAN producers from being able to say that their products are free of growth hormones. Quite frankly, there are a number of people who simply do not want you to know what you are eating and not only is that troubling for our personal freedom at a very basic level, but it is also a blatant insult.

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]

Another thought...
Posted by: GreenSangha on Jan 28, 2008 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a couple of additions. As we know with genetic manipulation and cloning in plants, it makes a species weaker if all plants are of one kind. The genetic diversity that allows plants to survive various natural onslaughts is eliminated, hence you get things like the Irish Potato famine. I would ask what what the implications are for cloning animals?

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]

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement