Got a beef with food tasting like deja moo?

Got a beef with food tasting like deja moo?

www.smh.com.au

Australians will be eating beef from the offspring of cloned cattle within two to three years, the creator of Australia's first cloned cow says.

Cattle are now cloned for breeding but Richard Fry, founder of Clone International, said meat and milk products from their progeny could be safely consumed by humans.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Look I'm open to debate on this one. As I don't know enough about cloning and it's implications (both moral and ethical) I'm stuck in the middle. I can see the benefits as they are spoken about but also I can see some horror stories coming in the future.
Can we think of cloning in the same light as GMO's or is it a different game all together?
I don't really think we need it to be honest. I know we have been doing it with plants for years, and I can see a lot of the same problems resurfacing. I'm thinking here mainly of mass plantings of the same crop, less diversity in the food chain, which as I understand it makes biological beings much more open to disease etc.
like I say tho if there's someone out there with a clearer picture please speak up

www.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

I would think that if the proteins are the same molecular speaking, why would the nutritional value be any different?

as cool as it is that we can now clone, can animals not reproduce just fine on their own. They have seemed to feed us like that for thousands of years.

I can see this being useful for animals that are endangered or even extinct, but it will probably lead to the same thing.

We'll be going to KFC for dodo burger's by Christmas lol.

reply to post by abecedarian


I guess it depends on what chemicals are introduced..

My biggest concern would be that , like some GM crops, maybe these cloned animals will become infertile..

Then what happens if an entire herd dies from a disease??
Where will the next animals come from??

All to scary and unnessersary IMO...

reply to post by CynicalM

To me this really just seems like another excuse to push nature aside to make room for us. We can back up all our animal life on a computer, then just clone one to fit the shape of our plate.

I just see cloned animals being more common in the distant future than natural ones, and like said, if they become infertile we have quite the situation on our hands.

reply to post by CynicalM


Keeping in mind that GM is genetic modification where the DNA of the organism is modified as opposed to selective breeding, grafting or affecting pollination. There are non-GM infertile crop species grown and consumed regularly: banana, grape, pineapple, watermelon, orange, cucumber and fig to name a few. No one seems to mind most those being clones, do they? Nope, 'cause it's a natural cloning process.

As for cloning beef, I think the point of it is to produce a more consistant product, removing the influence of genetic diversity, no? Select an animal with all the desirable traits and none of the non-desirable and make copies; if every Angus produced 1000 pounds of perfect cuts with identical nutritional value, without the need for growth hormones....

Now having said what I have, I would require proof it is safe though.

reply to post by abecedarian


Isn't genetic diversity considered a GOOD thing??

Problem with "everyone" the same is if you make a mistake or some gene suddenly mutates and effects all..

I say, if it's not broken don't try to fix it..

I like variety, even trying to choose the best piece of beef at the butchers..

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by abecedarian

 

Isn't genetic diversity considered a GOOD thing??

Problem with "everyone" the same is if you make a mistake or some gene suddenly mutates and effects all..

I say, if it's not broken don't try to fix it..

I like variety, even trying to choose the best piece of beef at the butchers..

Genetic diversity is generally good for the species, yet there are species that propagate through asexual means where the child is a clone of the parent. However, I don't see genetic diversity in food significantly affecting the consumer of the food: if two gazelle were genetically identical and otherwise healthy, would it matter to the cheetah that eats them?

reply to post by abecedarian


I think the point of diversity would be to help limit the effect of disease, making the species stronger.
like I say I don't know yet if I'm against it or not. I will say tho that people getting their pets cloned freaks me out.
And didn't dolly the sheep not live as long or have medical problems

reply to post by abecedarian


also where does it end? Will there be 4 legged chickens? cows with and extra rump? something about just 'itches my bump of trouble' to quote a fiest book.
as for us modifying plants, that all happened over a much larger time from and wasn't it more just taking individual plants with desired traits move than splitting genes etc

reply to post by k0mbination


I thought the discussion was about cloned beef?
If the parent was a natually born, healthy, sufficiently disease free animal, one you would willingly take a slice of and ask for seconds even, and if the cloning process didn't introduce any abnormalities thus creating an identical copy of the parent, is there an issue? It would be one healthy parent used to create multiple identical offspring, no?

I may take issue with multi-generational clones, meaning a clone of a clone, etc. though. However, if the clones' DNA were sequenced and found to be "EXACTLY" equal to the original, non-clone parent, again I'm not seeing much of an issue.

And one thing I would like to caution is that this cloned beef would be created solely for consumption, not breeding, and therefore wouldn't be a factor in the natural specie's gene pool. Were breeding to occur with a clone, I would be weary of the offspring.

Originally posted by k0mbination
reply to post by abecedarian

 

also where does it end? Will there be 4 legged chickens? cows with and extra rump? something about just 'itches my bump of trouble' to quote a fiest book.
as for us modifying plants, that all happened over a much larger time from and wasn't it more just taking individual plants with desired traits move than splitting genes etc

With the 4-legged chicken thing, you're getting more into genetic engineering than what cloning would be considered, however what's wrong with some extra dark meat?

With the plants, you're right to an extent. Realize that selective breeding, cross breeding, etc. is genetic modification but from the outside- you're not going in splicing DNA or injecting viruses to cause mutations, you're incrementally creating mutations by breeding the plants and discarding the undesirable results, hopefully creating a better plant for the effort. Then you have to realize that once you have your desired plant, you no longer permit cross breeding and begin restricting genetic diversity because you don't want those undesirable traits to return.

If cloning from healthy stock, and assuming no genetic aberrations over multiple generations - I can see no problems with this being a viable food source.

Mmmmmm clone in Sweet Baby Rays BBQ sauce......

reply to post by abecedarian

And one thing I would like to caution is that this cloned beef would be created solely for consumption, not breeding, and therefore wouldn't be a factor in the natural specie's gene pool. Were breeding to occur with a clone, I would be weary of the offspring.

Yep, thats the problem...

The other problem is that would trust NO Goverment shrill to protect my interests on this..

(tin foil hat on) Next thing you know, we have cows that can only eat Monsanto Grass...

Originally posted by abecedarian
With the 4-legged chicken thing, you're getting more into genetic engineering than what cloning would be considered, however what's wrong with some extra dark meat?

I imagine they'd taste great, if you could ever catch them...

But like you said, that's a whole different game of genetic engineering and not cloning at all. I don't see a downside to cloning for food production.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

I don't see a downside to cloning for food production.

Oh you don't do you?



It's just a matter of time before the cow clone wars!

I know I'm nobody but I did star those that made me laugh.

Too bad there aren't more making the serious arguments for and against the subject though. The subject will be a reality in the near future and humanity should be debating it before it is forced on us if for no other reason than it is not natural.

reply to post by abecedarian


I just wanted a discussion about cloning, as I've mentioned I'm of two minds, and since on this site there are some extremely intelligent and opened minded people I thought I might get a clearer picture as to what it's all about.
I don't really understand the implications of the of the act, is it similar to GMO (which we've found out it isn't) is it safe to it eat? (jury's out still for me on that one) what can be done with it? ( I still think cloning your old pets is kinda creepy) And is it really an exact copy, or is it like say a photocopy that gets steadily worse the more you do it, which for a living being would be...well horrendous.
And at the end of the day why do we need it? if all it's doing is copying traits that a farmer (or now usually big business) wants, surly selective breading is just as good if not better (I'm still thinking of diversity here)
I dunno something about it just seem's fundamentally flawed