get your cloneburgers here!

Jan 15, 2008 12:35

Okay... maybe it's just me, but this really creeps me out.


Leave a comment

Comments 36

ssimon January 15 2008, 20:08:58 UTC
it's not just you; I just can't figure out why people are weirded out by this. It's not like the cattle industry hasn't been adding synthetic BGH (that's exactly like the kind produced by cattle and has little effect on the beef/milk product) for years. Some people still complain about that, though.

We heard (pun?) the same complaints when farms started artificially impregnating animals, so this doesn't surprise me. The noise will die down eventually.

Reply

lhiana January 15 2008, 20:31:04 UTC
I don't know... I guess my weirded-outness stems from the fact that I've been eating Farmers Market (i.e. locally raised) beef, chicken, and lamb for the last few years and can't imagine ever going back to mass-produced meat. Seriously, it may be twice as expensive, but the taste is simply much better.

Reply

ssimon January 15 2008, 22:56:48 UTC
just because it's local doesn't preclude it from being cloned or modified; just means fewer processes between 'animal' and 'steak'.

Plus you don't have the steakhouses/restaurants snapping up the good stuff.

Reply

it's simple, really... lhiana January 16 2008, 00:32:52 UTC
No, it doesn't. Bread is a tricky tricky issue with me - just because it's local doesn't mean they didn't buy their flour at Wal*Mart, a business I do not support. But in most cases these small-scale beef/poultry operations don't even have the budget to deal with such technology. More than just that, there are places that don't WANT to use it, as is the case with most New Mexico ranches and farms. I have visited two of the four places that sell beef at the Market. Unless they're hiding some sort of lab somewhere on the premises, I can assure you there are no clones on those sites ( ... )

Reply


Cloned Meat redokapi January 25 2008, 20:23:08 UTC
I gotta say I more or less agree with ssiomon on this. Cloned animals are still way more expensive than breeding them the "normal" way. Likely using them as quick ways to get breeding stock is more likely than eating them in the near future. (Can you see the "Cattle Ranch in a Box Starter Set"?) In reality, I think the process they're using now is less like "cloning" and more like "twinning". I haven't been following the exact science of cloning so much lately though, so I may be wrong.

This is an entirely different story however. (Growing meat in a petri dish). Not sure on safety and all that...but just seems a bit wrong.

Reply

Re: Cloned Meat ssimon January 28 2008, 07:45:13 UTC
They already grow skin grafts in petri dish (actually in a flask, but whatever; petri dishes are very small) as well as transplant organs... sort of and that's not even counting the inkjet stuff. So why would you let them grow you new skin or a new kidney; but not dinner?

The biggest difficulty with cloning is that when you clone an organism you clone it at the moment in time of collection. If you clone a 3 year old pig, when it starts growing in vivo; it's effectively already 3 years old. So the animal doesn't live as long if you collect late in life; but if you collected from a newborn or even earlier, you can avoid some of those problems. They don't have the magical 'accelerated growth' from sci fi movies; accelerated growth already has a name; cancer.

And besides; if they can grow it in a vat we can finally find out what spotted owl tastes like! :)

Reply

Re: Cloned Meat lhiana January 29 2008, 20:56:06 UTC
Okay, do you really consider the choice someone makes about their diet, and a choice they may have to make about staying alive on the same level?

Reply

Re: Cloned Meat ssimon January 30 2008, 05:50:42 UTC
If you use the same logic for either question, you should arrive at the same answer. What criteria are you using that makes the two different? If it is 'safe' enough to save your life, how is it not 'safe' to eat?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up