FDA poised to OK food from cloned animals

[Aeson]

I think it should be on the labels, but personally don't care whether the food I eat is cloned or not. People should be far more worried about what was in the livestock feed, what medications they were treated with, but that stuff doesn't (generally) make it onto labels.

[Lorizael]

To be honest, I just can't see this becoming an issue in the near future. Is it cheaper to clone new cows or two have a boy cow and a girl cow do the nasty? If it's not safe, it'll be made safe by the time this is likely to have an impact on me as a consumer. If it is safe, way to go.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Luddite. Another of THOSE terms.

Luddite perfectly describes the fear mongering and anti-science tactics of the anti-GMO crowd.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oerdin
...Time to let the market decide.

Then we are in agreement.

[Dinner]

The market needs to decide without stacking the deck of cards against one side. Corn is corn. If someone needs to know the ingredients then it should be listed simply as corn. To do other wise is to decive consumers into believe they are not comparable items.

[Wezil]

"Warning Label"? You gave it that term, not me. (edit: To be fair, the article gives it that name)

I think the consumer should be provided full information about what they are consuming.

Yes, it would cost the industry money and that is what this is all about isn't it? We do not have a shortage of food or food production. A few large multinationals figure they can squeeze a few more dimes out of the industry if they take this approach. Public health or choice is not their #1 concern.

[SlowwHand]

[Dinner]

It's a question of fairness. If you want to slap warning labels on something you'd better have some damn good proof something is dangerous. The luddites have tried to find some excuse for a decade and a half and they've come up with an empty bag. Until they can prove otherwise or at least provide some tiny fig leaf then the government needs to stay out of the market's way and consider corn to be corn.

[Wezil]

I don't consider it a "warning label" so much as an "Information label".

Btw, if the evidence is so overwhelming in favour, why the controversy? Shouldn't this be real easy to sell the public on if the evidence is that clear cut?

If I had a dime for every time officialdom said "No problem, it is safe"...

[Dinner]

The "controversy" is entirely artificially contrived in order to prey on the doubts and worries of the ignorant masses. Much like the "controversy" around evolution. The peer reviewed consensus is that there is no reason for controversy and that corn is corn as long as it is made according to FDA approved methods.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Any "Warning Label" induces irrational fear from consumers that something may be wrong with said product. If you slapped a warning label on bacon saying "Warning: From a Pig's Butt", the amount of bacon sold would probably drop because idiots would think that means it is unsafe.

Now if it is in the information label with the other ingrediants, then fine.

[Wezil]

Pushing an unnecessary product that the public doesn't want.

[Dinner]

Improving efficiency for farmers, decreasing pesticide use, and improving quality.

[Wezil]

Strange that argument doesn't work.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Improving efficiency for farmers, decreasing pesticide use, and improving quality.