At least so far only a handful of legislators have commented on the topic (and some seem more concerned with possible trade implications). Hopefully congress stays out of it and lets the FDA ruling stand.
It's more complicated than that...xthreadJanuary 26 2007, 21:27:07 UTC
For the time being, virtually every clone that's been built anywhere is transgenic, and more than a little bit. So, no, any cloned food that you eat anytime soon won't be a lifeform based upon some basic chemistry other than good old CHON, it's entirely credible that we could see some very strange protein stuff going on, since current clones are made using processes that don't really clone the original critter.
What is wrong with meat from cloned critters? A cloned critter is still a critter. It's just a genetic twin. But it's not like it has some sort of artificial genetic code that causes the meat of said critter to be harmful. It isn't radioactive. What can possibly be wrong/different between cloned critters' meat and non-cloned critters' meat?
In all likelyhood, there would be nothing unsafe about the meat, if all you care about is eating it. I, however, don't think that the idea of a substancial portion of my meat supply coming from stock with a genetic diversity of *zero* is a good idea. Genetic diversity is a GOOD thing, and sacrificing it just so some large agribusiness can stock their overcramped cow barns with a specific gene set that seems better suited to living in conditions that animals should never have to tolerate in the first place, is not something i wish to support.
Ergo, i'd want the labeling, so i could see who not to purchase my meat from.
I can see your point about the genetic diversity of zero, however, what has been happening lately? Bovines are being raised by having whole herds of females, with one bull "servicing" them. There's a lot of inbreeding. Do you have no problems with that? Should that be labeled too? Also, many farms don't even have a bull, it's cheaper (and gives you "better quality critters") to buy your sperm from a sperm bank..that bull that won at the State Fair likely has gallons of sperm, for sale in increments of 2 tablespoons each. Whole herds of sisters. Bulls get culled for veal
( ... )
Sigh. Longer post on this in my journal when I'm home and have time to deal with it. Giving more money (and therfore control) to the giant mega-pharma-companies that do this sort of genetic tampering is just bad. Buy you meat from a farm you can go visit. Yet another reason why I DONT EVER buy meat from the store.
Comments 12
Reply
Reply
For more reading, check out Clone Your Troubles Away: Dreaming at the frontiers of Animal Husbandry from Harper's, published in 2005.
Reply
In all likelyhood, there would be nothing unsafe about the meat, if all you care about is eating it. I, however, don't think that the idea of a substancial portion of my meat supply coming from stock with a genetic diversity of *zero* is a good idea. Genetic diversity is a GOOD thing, and sacrificing it just so some large agribusiness can stock their overcramped cow barns with a specific gene set that seems better suited to living in conditions that animals should never have to tolerate in the first place, is not something i wish to support.
Ergo, i'd want the labeling, so i could see who not to purchase my meat from.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment