FDA poised to OK food from cloned animals

[SlowwHand]

As long as they don't clone that poor dead and raped deer, I guess I don't care.
I would like to see it listed anyway, especially if they use the deer after all.

[Lorizael]

What about that freaky seven-legged deer. You think it was cloned?

[SlowwHand]

The deeropus?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yes, I know why the nut warnings are there. The point being it is not so difficult to label if you are unsure. The chocolates in question were not supposed to contain nuts, but may have had trace elements.

It is about informed choice. Put GM on the market and let the consumers decide. Why are GM proponents so afraid of that?

Originally posted by Geronimo
Why do you find it so difficult to imagine that when reading "This product may contain meat from cloned animals" the reader may be forgiven for automatically assuming that such a label must be there to warn of some kind of risk??

Don't you understand that producers can't accept being forced suggest that their products have been found to carry some risk to consumers health that they need to warn us all about?

[Wezil]

So if a company wants to substitute horse meat (perfectly healthy) for beef in their product they should be under no requirement to inform the consumer?

It is about informed choice.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wezil
So if a company wants to substitute horse meat (perfectly healthy) for beef in their product they should be under no requirement to inform the consumer?

It is about informed choice.

They already have to change their ingredients from beef to list simply meat (beef or horse).

Beef flesh and horse flesh are demonstrably different products in several ways and in recogition of this current laws prevent such a substitution.

What is the difference between cloned and uncloned beef that would require altering the laws so as to specify this information?

The laws do not require the specification of the exact age and/or diet of the animal used in ingredient labels even though these differences result in some measurable differences in the quality of the meat.

Do you intend to require labeling for cloned/uncloned history (which make no detectable difference) but not require labelling for diet of the animal and it's exact age (or age undetermined) even though those both do affect the quality of the meat?

I smell an irrational double standard.

[Wezil]

I don't think the consumer cares one way or another about the age of the animal. They do care about GM.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wezil
I don't think the consumer cares one way or another about the age of the animal. They do care about GM.

They do? Did we ask them? What if they hear on the news that I'm petitioning the government to require labelling of the age and diet of the animals used for animal products in the ingredients because of unallayed concerns I have about the inadequately studied risks these factors can have on their health?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Geronimo



They do? Did we ask them?

The big money industry is fighting against someone's concerns. I doubt the GM industry created the opponents for something to do.

What if they hear on the news that I'm petitioning the government to require labelling of the age and diet of the animals used for animal products in the ingredients because of unallayed concerns I have about the inadequately studied risks these factors can have on their health?

Start your petition - if enough people share your concerns (and you can get by the $$ stacked against you) you will be successful.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wezil


The big money industry is fighting against someone's concerns. I doubt the GM industry created the opponents for something to do.



Start your petition - if enough people share your concerns (and you can get by the $$ stacked against you) you will be successful.

successful does not equal right.

[Wezil]

"If" being the key word. No one cares about the issue you raise but they do care about GM.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wezil
"If" being the key word. No one cares about the issue you raise but they do care about GM.

I care about why they care. I maintain that it is possible to incite irrational fears and it is wrong to pander to irrational fears much less legitimize them. especially at someone elses expense.

Whats more, irrational fears are like fads they can rapidly come and go without apparent rhyme or reason. It's absurd to expect the law to attempt to cater to such trends.

Regulation will have to remain grounded in empirical studies and verifiable evidence if it is to remain at all useful to the public.

The principles guiding such regulations are what need to be established to cater to popular opinion. Not the details. Indeed the principles will likely be the only thing it is possible to build a consensus on.

[Tattila the Hun]

A cow. You'd eat meat made of her. Here's another cow. She's 100% same as the first cow... DANGEROUS!!!!! WARNING!!!! LABEL!!!! DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, FAMILY VALUES!!! THE HUGE MANATEEEEEE!!!!

Beef Vat.

[Geronimo]

to be clear, I think regulations should allow for catering to such irrational fear trends by carefully regulating the use of special labels that might say "free of GMO products" or "free of cloned meat" such that the consumer can have confidence that those specific labels meet certain publicly known standardized criteria required to bear those labels.

This way products can be prepared to cater to consumers who have such irrational fears such that the consumer obtains whatever sort of product atribute is important to them with confidence in the veracity of such labeling while in no way passing additional expenses onto the normal population.

[Odin]

I pretty much agree with Oerdin. The anti-GMO BS is the left-wing equivalent of the Creationists and Global Warming denialists on the Right. The whole anti-GMO movement is nothing more then BS from the "messing with nature is bad" branch of luddites who abuse the "precautionary priciple" in order to stifle progress.