FDA's OK May Spark 'Clone-Free' Labels

[kleenex]

FDA's OK May Spark 'Clone-Free' Labels - washingtonpost.com

one step closer to have cloned meat at a grocery store.

 

[VeraBlue]

I don't think that is what the article is saying at all. It sounds to me as though the FDA would not permit a label that says -clone free- because it would mislead consumers into believing that the product in question was safer than another product.
According to the article, there is virtually no difference in the meat or dairy product produced by clones.
Considering most meat, poultry, fish and vegetables are already chemically enhanced, I don't see the big difference here. Actually, I imagine once the cloning process is complete, a cloned animal could be raised green, organically, making a healthier product for the consumer.

I wouldn't reject it any more than I would reject any other meat.

 

[stinemates]

I don't understand what the benefit would be to selling cloned cattle beef over regular cattle beef..?

Am I missing something?

 

[Constance]

I really don't understand what all the big fuss is about, but it's always been that way with something new. A lot of people didn't like homogonized milk when it first came out, or bread made with enriched flour (didn't like the taste of those vitamins). Most of you all are just too young to remember that.

 

[VeraBlue]

I don't understand what the benefit would be to selling cloned cattle beef over regular cattle beef..?

Am I missing something?

more food for more people...Supply and demand.

 

[licia]

I would like to know if the meat is from a cloned animal or not. I think there is a period of time for questions and argument and believe that to be best.

 

[skilletlicker]

Reading the above linked Washington Post article and listening to a couple news segments on the subject leads to think that it means the FDA doesn't expect to require labels.

If they think it would give them a competitive edge marketers will "label" it "No cloned..." but it won't have any real meaning, in my opinion.

Personally I think this is presently more of an animal rights/cruelty issue than a public health one.

 

[VeraBlue]

I would like to know if the meat is from a cloned animal or not. I think there is a period of time for questions and argument and believe that to be best.

Currently, they are in the questions and arguments period.

 

[stinemates]

more food for more people...Supply and demand.

I still don't get it... you still have to raise them from babies.. or are you implying that because they can clone abnormally large cows, it will increase the supply?

I am not trying to poke holes, just trying to understand..

 

[skilletlicker]

I still don't get it... you still have to raise them from babies.. or are you implying that because they can clone abnormally large cows, it will increase the supply?

I am not trying to poke holes, just trying to understand..

I'm not very smart but I think the idea is that maybe someday instead of a cow producing one calf in a year, a whole herd might be cloned from it in the same time.

I could be wrong on this, but at current state of art, after many unsucessful and very expensive clones are produced, one may actually be a healthy, successful duplication of the "parent." I presume that's why the article says that it is currently only practical for breeding stock.

 

[Constance]

I think you've got the right idea, Skillit. If that's the case, it could actually end up being a lot better for our environment. Cattle take an enormous amount of land to raise, and if one cow could deliver a whole herd of steers instead of just one, it would save considerable pasture land.

As long as we don't start eating Soylent Green.

 

[skilletlicker]

I think you've got the right idea, Skillit. If that's the case, it could actually end up being a lot better for our environment. Cattle take an enormous amount of land to raise, and if one cow could deliver a whole herd of steers instead of just one, it would save considerable pasture land.

As long as we don't start eating Soylent Green.

If I understand it correctly, it would take a Bull to produce a herd of cloned calves which could be turned into steers. Unfortunately for the bull, the process would not be nearly as enjoyable.

 

[skilletlicker]

Come to think of it; no reason why a steer couldn't be used to clone a herd.

 

[amber]

I think you've got the right idea, Skillit. If that's the case, it could actually end up being a lot better for our environment. Cattle take an enormous amount of land to raise, and if one cow could deliver a whole herd of steers instead of just one, it would save considerable pasture land.

As long as we don't start eating Soylent Green.

Assuming one cow produces many, wouldnt that take up more pasture?

On to the question at hand, I dont see any difference between cloned cows, but for some reason I wouldnt want to buy one just yet, not sure why though.

 

[skilletlicker]

Assuming one cow produces many, wouldnt that take up more pasture?

No, because you wouldn't be pasturing the mother cows. Remember that this is not yet possible.

On to the question at hand, I don't see any difference between cloned cows, but for some reason I wouldnt want to buy one just yet, not sure why though.

Nor am I. Fortunately, it is not yet an option.

Where are our agricultural experts to enlighten this conversation. Sparrowgrass, we need you.

 

[Andy M.]

If you can select animals that are extra prolific milk producers or yield prime beef rather than choice or select, you could clone them and produce offspring( if that's the right term) that all produce a higher quality product and more of it for the same money.

You don't need a steer. You simply take any cell from the animal to be cloned and process it from there.

 

[skilletlicker]

You don't need a steer. You simply take any cell from the animal to be cloned and process it from there.

Of course you are right Andy. If I intimated that the process involved the sacrifice of the cell donor, I apologize for the confusion.

 

[StirBlue]

I just wish they would clone another cashier!
Oops, they did; it's called "self check". lol

more food for more people...Supply and demand.

 

[boufa06]

Reading the linked article and the subsequent posts, two names stand out above all the din, ViaGen and Cyagra. For now they are my heroes. True benefactors of mankind! At significant cost to them, they work tirelessly to produce more and better meat for us let alone the extra milk! What a fine example of corporate altruism (an oxymoron perhaps?)! As for any health concerns, 678 pages of FDA outpouring (based on data contributed so unselfishly by our hero companies) should be enough to silence (or at least confuse) even the most vociferous of the unbelievers. Although I am not keeping track of such statistics, I am nonetheless certain that the pages of the document essentially approving cloned meat for human consumption far exceed in number as well as in weight those of the document approving the use of thalidomide (another unselfish gift to mankind) a little while back. There only remains one final step, i.e., to ram the use of cloned meat down the throat of the rest of the world so that they can all benefit accordingly. It is heart-warming to see that the FDA is cognizant of such need by declaring themselves against the use of labels that reveal the cloned or clone-free origin of marketed meat. With 2007 just around the corner, I wonder why it feels a bit like 1984.

 

[skilletlicker]

Reading the linked article and the subsequent posts, two names stand out above all the din, ViaGen and Cyagra. For now they are my heroes. True benefactors of mankind! At significant cost to them, they work tirelessly to produce more and better meat for us let alone the extra milk! What a fine example of corporate altruism (an oxymoron perhaps?)! As for any health concerns, 678 pages of FDA outpouring (based on data contributed so unselfishly by our hero companies) should be enough to silence (or at least confuse) even the most vociferous of the unbelievers. Although I am not keeping track of such statistics, I am nonetheless certain that the pages of the document essentially approving cloned meat for human consumption far exceed in number as well as in weight those of the document approving the use of thalidomide (another unselfish gift to mankind) a little while back. There only remains one final step, i.e., to ram the use of cloned meat down the throat of the rest of the world so that they can all benefit accordingly. It is heart-warming to see that the FDA is cognizant of such need by declaring themselves against the use of labels that reveal the cloned or clone-free origin of marketed meat. With 2007 just around the corner, I wonder why it feels a bit like 1984.

As the self appointed spokesman of the dumbest among us; Say what?