It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Source: News Daily
Of the 400-some cattle in Barry Pollard's herd of mostly Black Angus cattle there are 22 clones, genetic copies of some of the most productive livestock the world has ever known. Pollard, a neurosurgeon and owner of Pollard Farms, says such breeding technology is at the forefront of a new era in animal agriculture. "We're trying to stay on the very top of the heap of quality, genetically, with animals that will gain well and fatten well, produce well and reproduce well," Pollard told a reporter during a recent visit to his farm. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2008 approved the sale of food from clones and their offspring, stating the products are indistinguishable from that of their non-clone counterparts. Japan, the European Union, and others have followed suit. The moves have stirred controversy about whether tinkering with nature is safe, or even ethical, prompting major food companies to swear off food products from cloned animals. But consumers are likely already eating meat and drinking milk from the offspring of clones, which are technically not clones, without even knowing it. Farmers can now use cloning and other assisted breeding technologies to breed cows that produce bigger, better steaks or massive amounts of milk, and animals that resist diseases or reproduce with clockwork precision. Premier genes can translate to improved feeding efficiency, meaning the ability to convert the least amount of feed into the most meat or milk, which results in a smaller environmental footprint.
With all the "Mad Cow" disease, H1N1 and other dangers that threaten out human existence, I'm not exactly sure if I want to be the first one in line to start eating 'Cloned' animals
are we at the stage where this is viable
Content from external source:
Many biologists assert that this technology is ready for commercial use and simply needs a company to back it.[
Content from external source:
According to a new economic analysis presented at this week's In Vitro Meat Symposium in Ås, Norway, meat grown in giant tanks known as bioreactors would cost between $5,200-$5,500 a ton
Perhaps the biggest misconception about livestock cloning is that clones are animals that have been genetically modified. They are not. Clones are unaltered genetic copies. "What cloning allows some ranchers to do is replicate their best animals to achieve more consistent quality traits," says Karen Batra, a spokesperson for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "As breeders we're always looking for opportunities to give consumers better products. Whether it's more flavorful, less fatty, or more tender meat, consumers value that." Batra concedes that it will take a broad consumer education program to allay concerns.
King Ranch is continuing to emphasize genetic progress in both the Santa Gertrudis and Santa Cruz cattle. For example, King Ranch is currently utilizing EPDs, DNA fingerprinting, embryo transfer, genomic selection criteria and AI to improve the Santa Gertrudis and to measure progress against their peers.
Not only is it "essentially" the same, it IS the same. It's not modified in any way, not even by evolution, so in a way it's perfectly sane to do it this way since we have no need to further modify (read: selectively mutate) cows.
Originally posted by SeikoThe fda is saying they're essentially the same and so don't have to be marked separately
I believe consumers have the right to make this decision themselves, all modified foods should be labeled appropriately.
Originally posted by Wallachian
If they could make the cow with one hundred udders that produces chocolate flavoured milk and only feeds on its own faeces, they would. Not because the consumers asked for it, but because they want more profit for less work.