FDA poised to OK food from cloned animals

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Luddite. Another of THOSE terms.

What's this, I've won a texan over to my cause?

[Q Classic]

****ing anti-progress anti-technology cowards. Go, go, cloned food!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Wezil
Strange that argument doesn't work.

Indeed it does. GMO crops produce more per acre of land, they require much less pesticides, and typically less fertiliers as well. Thus they increase efficency, decrease pesticide use, and often improve quality by engineering in desirable treats (like extra vitimens, etc).

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/genetically_modified_cotton_crops_produced_greater_yields_reduced_pesticide_use

Study after study after study show the exact same things. Increased crop yields, decreased pesticide use, and improved quality (meaning the crops are engineered to produce more of the most desirable varieties; in cotton they select for extra long and fine fibers).

[Geronimo]

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

QFT

[Geronimo]

If there is so much demand for labels that identify their products as free of cloned meat then companies will figure this out and apply the labels themselves to cater to that demand.

Mandating the labels is *not* letting the market work.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Indeed it does. GMO crops produce more per acre of land, they require much less pesticides, and typically less fertiliers as well. Thus they increase efficency, decrease pesticide use, and often improve quality by engineering in desirable treats (like extra vitimens, etc).

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/genetically_modified_cotton_crops_produced_greater_yields_reduced_pesticide_use

Study after study after study show the exact same things. Increased crop yields, decreased pesticide use, and improved quality (meaning the crops are engineered to produce more of the most desirable varieties; in cotton they select for extra long and fine fibers).

You misunderstand my point.

You are convinced this is the best thing since...whatever... and this offers great benefits yet the consumer is not convinced. This should be an easy sell if everything is as you claim.

The point remains it is an unnecessary development. There is not a food shortage and this tech is being pushed by multinationals (not family farms) to make more $$.

If you want to eat GM, go ahead. I simply ask to know what producers are putting in their products so I can make that choice for myself.

[Aeson]

Getting a general populace to accept change has never been an easy sell.

[SlowwHand]

It's official now. The FDA just approved it.

FDA OKs food from cloned animals

By LIBBY QUAID, AP Food and Farm Writer
11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The government declared Thursday that food from cloned animals is safe to eat. After more than five years of study, the
Food and Drug Administration concluded that cloned livestock is "virtually indistinguishable" from conventional livestock.

FDA believes "that meat and milk from cattle, swine and goat clones is as safe to eat as the food we eat every day," said Stephen F. Sundlof, director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wezil


You misunderstand my point.

You are convinced this is the best thing since...whatever... and this offers great benefits yet the consumer is not convinced. This should be an easy sell if everything is as you claim.

The point remains it is an unnecessary development. There is not a food shortage and this tech is being pushed by multinationals (not family farms) to make more $$.

If you want to eat GM, go ahead. I simply ask to know what producers are putting in their products so I can make that choice for myself.

How will the industry determine whether a product it purchases is GM or cloned or not? Will you allow them to simply accept the word of the supplier with no liability in the event of supplier fraud or will you force them to undertake whatever drastic measures are necessary to guarentee the origin the products they purchase in order to avoid massive liabilities from non compliance with your labeling requirements?

This sort of thing isn't always cheap. Why should I have to pay for it as a consumer? Why not simply let neurotics who feel they must know [insert irrelevant trivia of product history here] continue to pay the necessary premium for products that are tailored specifically for their peculiar neurosis and the rest of us can consume normal products untroubled by the personal issues of those consumers?

[Wezil]

I bought a box of chocolate recently that contained the wording (something like) - "This product may contain peanuts or other nuts".

If they are unsure then say so. Simple enough.

[Zkribbler]

While the government is saying there need be no warning lable regarding cloned beef, there's no rule that other meat packers can't truthfully say what is in theirs. I'd lable my beef something like "all natural--no genetic engineering; no cloning."

[Dis]

errr wait a minute. Wouldn't it be cheaper to have the animals **** the old fashioned way instead of spending millions of dollars to clone them?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wezil
I bought a box of chocolate recently that contained the wording (something like) - "This product may contain peanuts or other nuts".

If they are unsure then say so. Simple enough.

Severe allergic reactions to nuts are far more common than severe reactions to almost any other food including dairy products.

How did I learn this? I consumed packages that said "This product may contain peanuts or other nuts" and thought to myself "wtf? why does it matter if it contains nuts?" It prompted me to investigate because I could not fathom a label being there just for the purpose of informing me that it might contain nuts just in case I wanted to know. It turned out of course that the label was there to help avert serious injury to those allergic to the nuts. Yes consuming such products actually carries a real and doccumented risk. A risk that was doccumented before any such labels were applied.

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?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dis
errr wait a minute. Wouldn't it be cheaper to have the animals **** the old fashioned way instead of spending millions of dollars to clone them?

Right. This discussion is in fact mostly an acedemic excerise for that reason. I doubt the ruling on such cloned meat has any practical implications for the time being.

[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?