It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cloned Animals are OK to Eat Rules the FDA

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
"Virtually Indistinguishable" is what the FDA says about cloned animals in regards to human consumption and by-product use. These words derived from the director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, Stephen Sundlof, after a five year study investigation into the matter. "It would be unlikely that FDA would require labeling in those cases" Sundlof said in regards to whether or not cloned meat would require seperate labels from naturally "grown" animals.
 



www.msnbc.msn.com
The government declared Thursday that food from cloned animals is safe to eat.

After more than five years of study, the Food and Drug Administration concluded that cloned livestock is “virtually indistinguishable” from conventional livestock.

Critics of cloning say the verdict is still out on the safety of food from cloned animals.

“Consumers are going to be having a product that has potential safety issues and has a whole load of ethical issues tied to it, without any labeling,” said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It looks like technology has just thrown another ethical curve ball at the consumer market with the FDA's approval of cloned meat. Of course, one would normally say that even though cloned meat and products have been introduced on the consumer forefront, one could still choose between cloned or non-cloned much like people make decisions between organic and inorganic vegetables and fruit. However this is not the case. As stated in the article, it's an improbablity that there will be any difference in labeling these meats. Should be an interesting one on the news in the coming weeks.

[edit on 12/28/2006 by Simulacra]



apc

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I'd sure hate to fly on a plane that could "virtually land"...

What's the big deal with cloned meat anyway? Do we have a shortage of naturally conceived meat? Isn't it more expensive to make a cow in a test tube than it is through good old fashioned barn-rockin milk-splashin' bovine love?



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
This is crazy.. aren't we still in debate over the morality of cloning animals? (maybe I missed a boat someplace..)

If humanity were truly concerned with making sure there's enough food for everyone, we'd get all the farmland growing and export it to those who need it. But, I do not think that this is their main concern... methinks it's an issue of the 'demand' of meat, and the lack of supply.. which points to simple moderation.


“Consumers are going to be having a product that has potential safety issues and has a whole load of ethical issues tied to it, without any labeling,” said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety.


Am I understanding that we'll have no chance to make our own choices? ...seems ever-so-slightly sneaky.. The obvious lack of choice is enough to drive one to go vegetarian... bad enough we have to deal with possible mad cow disease, but we do not know the long-term effects of eating cloned meat. *Assumedly* it's okay.. but that does not necessarily mean much...

On second thought, I'll just move to a farm. Grow my own veggies and animals, and be done with their marketed clone meat.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
.

And it took the FDA only five years to make that determination.

WOW.

Now THAT'S efficient.

...Of course most modern diseases take decades to become apparent, especially the ones involving misfolded proteins, but who cares?




posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I just watched this story on the news and was amazed by how many people found the idea disgusting.

What could be so bad? It is basically just an identical twin of the cloned animal.

Does anyone have a problem with eating an identical twin cow?

I know I don't, pass the BBQ sauce.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What could be so bad? It is basically just an identical twin of the cloned animal.


I agree with you. There should be no resistance to this. Just another piece of technology that hippy vegans will use against meat eaters in the near future. Also, there's a poll on the originiating website, the last time I checked it, it was like 70% of people believed this was a bad idea. Weird.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
It's not only disgusting, it is sick!

Ask yourself the question, what will the clone be cloned from?

The answer is simple, the animal with most desirable advantages of course. And what is diserable in this concept? Bigger than normal volumes of meat naturally.

For this one advantage it'll be chosen, and disadvantages that follows it will be dealt with chemically.

Because be sure, you don't gain anything without giving some in the other end, which typically will be a reduced immune defence.

The fact that the animal producing the biggest meat volume might be a sick animal, is the obvious risk neglected, to be altered chemically and be lied about through junk science and advertising campaigns.

Big is beautiful some say, just remember the sign of cancer is it sheer size and its willingness to grow ever bigger.

By the way eating, the process of nourishing your body is part taking in a flow that creates the reality of this planet, something always moving and never stopping, an expression with ever changing looks and outputs mirroring the multitude of creations always seeking new forms. And ultimately perfection.

You don't get that from an old cow frozen in time.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
how bout growing the meat instead? check it:

LINK



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Khunmoon, aren't they doing that the natural way now anyway?

Breeding cattle has been around for a long time, but you won't hear anyone object to selectively bred meat.

Why is cloning the animal any different?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Well there is a company that clones pet cats already. But I love emat, and do not mind consuming cloned meat. Wonder if it will have a slight variation in taste?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

This is talked about on another thread and here is what I posted there:

quote: Originally posted by forestlady
There is really no reason why the cloned meat wouldn't be safe. But another question is...why?? Why clone when the old way still works. With cloning, the clone becomes progressively shorter-lived and eventually you have to start the whole thing over again.

**************
quote:
Link please.... the only time I hear that brought up is in some cliched scifi flick. Also if this does infact turn out to be a real problem, then all we have to do is regrow the telomeres every so often. Don't have the technology to do that reliably yet, but it's coming. There is a gene switch that governs it taht was just discovered. Lots of applications that stuff has...

Frankly, I can't wait until this technology reaches the point where we can selectively clone specific organs/tissues within nutrient vats in a mass production environment for implantation and consumption. Organ and Blood donation could be a thing of the past and true "cruelty free" meat will arrive. Though in the meantime we have to test it more thoroughly. Dolly was only born 10 years ago.

***********************

My source is my husband, a scientist who personally worked with Liz Blackburn, one of the 3 top scientists in the world, who are working with telemers and life-extension. It works like this: if you clone a 2 y.o. sheep, the telemers erode as if it's already 2 y.o., so you have already lost 2 years of the sheep's life. One day they will be able to solve the telemer problem, but not yet.

Clones are not as healthy and they don't live as long as the original animal. Is it safe to eat? Of course it is, it's just like eating the original animal. I just don't see this as practical, though, because farmers would need to find an animal to be the surrogate animal to give birth; thus requiring more animals than they have presently i.e. not cost effective.

As for the recently discovered gene switch, my husband was one that helped Liz develop that theory - they both agreed that it was a gene that needed to be switched off. It turns out they were both right. This could open all sorts of new doors, it's amazing.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Aren't cloned animals significantly more prone to early death and mutations? Isn't this the main issue we should be concerned, especially as this meat will appear (most likely) in UK and USA stores without any indication it is cloned meat?

Then there's the fact that cloned meat is pumped full of hormones and antibiotics and that cloned animals have very bad immune systems. Could this effect humans through ingestion?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
Aren't cloned animals significantly more prone to early death and mutations? Isn't this the main issue we should be concerned, especially as this meat will appear (most likely) in UK and USA stores without any indication it is cloned meat?

Then there's the fact that cloned meat is pumped full of hormones and antibiotics and that cloned animals have very bad immune systems. Could this effect humans through ingestion?



Animals that are raised to be eaten are usually prone to early death anyways, so who cared? Dolly lived to 6 years old, and most cattle are slaughtered much earlier then that.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
greed greed greed, it never stops.



Im just glad i won't have the problem of having to worry about my food being cloned or not.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
early death due to slaughter for market is one thing wolfofwar but early death for unknown reasons in clones is wholly another reason. I'm sure you can see that right?

not to mention the extra issues of mutations, hormones and antibiotics which are already at risky levels in normal meat (the latter two at least)



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
idontknow if im the only one who can see this

but there are TWO SAME TITLE THREADS LIKE THIS ONE right now in active topics

and i dont see moderators doing anything to change this even though appearently it is bad tohave two same topics



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
early death due to slaughter for market is one thing wolfofwar but early death for unknown reasons in clones is wholly another reason. I'm sure you can see that right?

not to mention the extra issues of mutations, hormones and antibiotics which are already at risky levels in normal meat (the latter two at least)


Its not an "unknown" reason. The reason for a clones early death is very much known, and quite simple. For example, in Dolly, she was prematurely aging because the telomeres in her dna, which were taken from an older sheep, were shortened. Which age they decay andshrink, and so her cells, from birth, were that of a four year old sheeps. So while she may have only been 6, she actually genetically was 10.

As for her death, she died from Ovine Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma, which is common in sheep that spend theyre lives indoors, like she did.

Theres no mysterious deaths involved, just simple science.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I wouldn't eat the cloned meat because sooner or later something will go wrong with it and people will die from it.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
well you can have my portion wolfofwar! I would personally rather wait a while and see what happens but it seems the govs won't allow that as it will not be labelled so consumers will have the choice removed from them.

does simple science explain the increased chance and occurance of mutation also?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
early death due to slaughter for market is one thing wolfofwar but early death for unknown reasons in clones is wholly another reason. I'm sure you can see that right?

not to mention the extra issues of mutations, hormones and antibiotics which are already at risky levels in normal meat (the latter two at least)


Its not an "unknown" reason. The reason for a clones early death is very much known, and quite simple. For example, in Dolly, she was prematurely aging because the telomeres in her dna, which were taken from an older sheep, were shortened. Which age they decay andshrink, and so her cells, from birth, were that of a four year old sheeps. So while she may have only been 6, she actually genetically was 10.

As for her death, she died from Ovine Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma, which is common in sheep that spend theyre lives indoors, like she did.

Theres no mysterious deaths involved, just simple science.


WolfofWar, I had aleady written about telemeres 4 posts back. Why are you repeating same information?

It doesn't matter if the immune systems are impaired or the animal is not healthy. We eat meat like that all the time. Animals that are used for meat are given tons of hormones, antibiotics and they are usually very sick and not healthy. No difference than from clones. Really, folks, there shouldn't be one reason why one couldn't eat the meat from cloned animals.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join