Well, okay, in some things I am a little behind, so while I understand this is an older article (and I apologize for that) I would still like to hear your thoughts on this.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave a preliminary "Okay" on December 28, 2006 to eating cloned animals and their offspring. (http://www.startribune.com/1244/v-print/story/902067.html)
Now, on the one hand, I think this is but a couple steps below Star Trek: The Next Generation's food synthesizers, which I used to think was such a great idea. And let's face it, our agriculture is slowly declining as our youth looks to higher paying, exciting jobs in growing technology. We spend millions on foods that we import from countries with less-than-adequate standards and regulations regarding pesticide use and other harmful substances; we argue over the expense of organic foods, and it seems as though every time I turn around there's a shortage on some food product or another somewhere in the country. Perhaps cloning food in this way will help alleviate these issues.
But, on the other hand, could we be jumping the gun? And how exactly are they testing the eating of cloned animals? What could some of the long term effects be? How will these cloned animals be treated, and will they fall under the same protection as other animals currently raised for food? Where will these cloned animals be kept, and how will we feed them?
Well, I would like to know what you think about the eating of cloned animals. Is it something we should pursue? Do the benefits outweigh the risks?
Also, the FDA is asking for the opinions of people regarding three statements they have released regarding the consumption of cloned animals. The link to send your opinions directly to the FDA is here: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01541.html
Please, write your opinions to me, if just to satisfy my curiosity, and if you feel strongly, take the time to visit their site and let them know about it.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The FDA should have really looked into the long term effects/results on this one first before letting it go through. I hope they did and it just hasn't been well publicized.
Wouldn't suprise me if there was something wrong though. The FDA endorses products that are supposedly healthy yet aren't...reading labels is such an eye-opener sometimes.
Now, this is true; although I was trying to stay away from the FDAs past failures at keeping substances safe...
But perhaps that shouldn't be just ignored when considering things like this, either?
---------------------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
I know that the FDA tries to do their job, but sometimes they are not the britest at their job.. That for sure. On the other hand, they are just trying to help us out. There is way too much contreversy on this one topic. You also have to think about that if they start to clone the animal, whats gonna stop them from cloning humans next?? Thought that might be off the topic, I would aslo like to know who is eating this "cloned food" and what it tastes like..... Great now I'm hungry... lol
Its not my job to kill you....
If you let women vote, then what's to stop you from letting dogs vote?
See it doesn't sound right the other way, does it?
You know, I've never heard even a hypothetical reason why cloned meat would be dangerous, only assumptions that it must be risky because it's new
It's true that cloned animals have more health problems, but a cow with heart failure still isn't poisonous to eat.
I object to cloning because it's cruel--and because I don't believe in animals as industrial products--but I've never understood why people would think cloned food is dangerous to eat.
It seems that, with no real reason to show concern for consumer health, the FDA is justified in not showing any.
I wonder should the FDA pursue this idea. I am like others who feel the FDA needs to determine the long term risks of using cloned animals. Some chemicals that they used may just develop into another H5N1 type of virus. I believe the FDA is messing with something it knows relatively nothing about. This whole idea of allowing cloned animals to enter into the consumer market is all about making big bucks for the rich, as far as I am concerned.
I am not an expert in biology and therefore what I say next is not fact. The way I understand the process of cloning is that an exact genetic copy of an organisism is created. Thus, if the original organism was safe to eat, the cloned one should be as well. No chemicals are added, and the procedure is clean, safe, and easy to follow. I see no problem whatsoever and see no way that a cloned animal could cause adverse effects in its consumers future. But I must add that we know nothing for sure other than our own individual existence so I urge you to take what I just said at face value.
If you like debating about topics such as this one I encourage you to visit this cool site, The Last Forefront (www.lastforefront.com). It has a recently upgraded forum that makes it easy to share your views and read about
I did believe the same thing before; however, recently I watched a show (available on ShowTime on Demand in my area) called "This American Life" that was set up sort of as a documentary.
This show covered the stories of three different people each relating to a theme. Episode one covered "Reality Check" - basically, when a great idea comes back to slap you in the face as reality of the idea sets in.
One of the stories was of a rancher with a very tame, very affectionate bull named Chance. This bull was old, but very affectionate and loving both to his owners and to their visitors.
When Texas A&M offered to clone Chance for part of their research, Chance's owners were very excited at the opportunity of getting a "Second Chance" (which is what they named the clone). But it wasn't long before they realized that despite the same treatment, life, and environment, Second Chance was not anything like Chance.
Second Chance had a very mean temperment, and often attacked his owners when they went to feed him. Unlike Chance, they were unable to leave Second Chance outside of the fences to graze and lounge in the shade of the trees for fear that he would attack a passerby.
And while I do realize that Second Chance was as healthy as Chance was while he was alive, I wonder about conditions that are not as apparent with the first animal?
Like if Chance was susceptible to a heart condition that never really developed because of a stressfree and loving life, whereas that same heart condition came out in Second Chance over his stressful and often angry temperment?
---------------------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
How does/could this affect the healthiness of the meat?
It was just one example of many that could come about this way. Perhaps the first is a carrier of a disease that he never falls susceptible to, and the clone develops the disease for some reason? Any disease.
I realize that heart disease in itself wouldn't (or at least it shouldn't) affect the meat, but there are plenty of other diseases that would. What if the first had a very low immune system, but nothing was discovered just for the simple fact that it lived a stressfree and cared for life, but the clone was angrier and therefore the lower immune system showed loud and clear as it developed disease after disease?
---------------------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/fanaile-essence
But if an animal dies from a disease, it isn't usually put into the meat supply. If it doesn't die even though it's treated the same as other animals, and makes it far enough to get into the food supply (isn't weeded out because of obvious sickliness), then it's within the normal or already-accepted range of animal health for consumption, right?
food is a touchy subject for me...because i love it so much and i take pride in what i eat. this is how i believe things should be. humans [families] should raise and grow their own food themselves. yes it takes a hell of a lot of work and time. but we all just need to slow down a bit and take life in. we need to be concious of what we put into our bodies. humans should be able to eat ALL raw foods. with meat factories improved (but still with a long way to go) we cant eat that meat raw without getting sick. bottom line for me: NOTHING ARTIFICIAL - GROW FOOD
peace
this is my music for change: http://www.purevolume.com/rosie
I would have to agree with Nancy. The procedure, for starters, has been thoroughly scrutinized for well over a decade by skeptics and proponents alike, and no really major immunology hitches have been hit that are impossible to correct.
Also, the FDA will oversee the production of this meat just like any other, and as a result we can be assured that unhealthy meat will not make it into our grocery stores.
Finally, meat as of now is not considered safe anyway. That's why you are supposed to completely cook ground beef and it's considered wise to thoroughly cook steak as well.
So, disease really shouldn't be a problem. The only abnormally worrisome aspect is the procedure, but, as stated, this has been scrutinized to no end by basically everyone already.
there is something wrong with the cloning technology i dont know what the exact term for it is but i liken it to a comic book concept called 'Clone Degeneration' i dont know what causes it but i know that clones live a fraction fo the original animals life span...i wonder if this defect could transfer through eating of the animal...i mean it may very well be a problem with genetics and not a problem to those consuming the animals...this genetic problem though may also very well be chemical we unknowingly could have created a chemical in the genetics of these animals that will kill us as well as the host...so we definitley are going to need a long clinical study of this before we can do it...anything shorter than a 30 year study with extensive medical workup during an extreme session in which only cloned meat can be consumed by the participants is unacceptable...i agree with the poster when she said that the FDA drops the ball alot and that is all to true that mainly goes along with the fact that we are all different and what is saving one of us will kill the guy next to us.
So you dont know what it is, so you cite comic books as your reason for being against it?
Where did you pull the need for a 30 year study? Is that your speculation?