Slashdot Log In
FDA Decides Cloned Animals Safe to Eat
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:31 PM
from the mmmmm-frankenburger dept.
from the mmmmm-frankenburger dept.
friedo writes "After five years of research, the Food and Drug Administration has decided that meat and milk from cloned animals is safe to eat. From the article: 'The government believes 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. Meat and milk from the offspring of clones is also safe, the agency concluded. Officials said they did not have enough information to decide whether food from sheep clones is safe. If food from clones is indistinguishable, FDA doesn't have the authority to require labels, Sundlof said. Companies trying to distance themselves from cloning must be careful with their wording, he added.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Bill Would Require Labels on Cloned Food 251 comments
ComeBack writes "Steaks, pork chops, milk and other products from cloned livestock would have to be clearly labeled on grocers' shelves under a bill pending in the California Legislature.
If passed, the requirement could be more stringent than federal rules. The Food and Drug Administration is poised to give final approval to meat and milk from cloned animals without any special labeling, though a bill introduced in Congress would require it."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Duped? Cloned? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dupe? Clned? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dupe? Clned? (Score:5, Interesting)
First we had the geniuses who went ahead with the money saving plan "Let's feed sheep's brains to cows!" which resulted in mad cow disease [wikipedia.org] (which, when infected meat is eaten, can cause incurable and fatal neurological disease CJD [wikipedia.org] in humans). Feeding meat to cows was clearly bad and wrong in ways that don't (shouldn't) need explaining to anyone and *blammo*, well what do you know, karma bites.
OT: Interestingly, Wikipedia says that in the US testing kits for BSE are banned (and presumably only conducted by the FDA then), and states "US Sixty-five nations have full or partial restrictions on importing U.S. beef products because of concerns that U.S. testing lacks sufficient rigor. As a result, exports of U.S. beef declined from $3.8 billion in 2003, before the first mad cow was detected in the US, to $1.4 billion in 2005.". Per head of population, CJD incidents in the US seem to be lower than in Europe/UK though, as US cattle seem to be typically fed on soya (which is at least vaguely sensible, it's a plant for starters - though oddities like artificial 'fish' proteins in GM soya give some cause for concern).
If feeding sheep to cows can screw people up through contamination of the food chain, there has surely got to be some grounds for being seriously concerned about the prospect of problems that might come from consuming cloned meat (specifically if it's on a regular basis - e.g. the same clone being eaten by people all over the world every time they go to a McDonald's, one nasty defect and *blammo* (again)).
As with the BSE crisis, if/when something goes wrong, I suspect the people and companies responsible for producing the goods will not even be investigated or in any way penalised (in fact, they will probably get huge subsidies as cattle farmers in the UK did to make up for the subsequent drop in the market, even though it was their own mess and it was public money that was spent cleaning it up).
Not as big a problem as if one of the clones had a cellular mutation that ended up giving it superpowers (telekinesis, invincibility, the ability to make chocolate milk, etc.) but still, I suspect This Will Not End Well.
It could of course be a much more humane way way to produce veal, dairy cows (without having to drag calves away at birth and feed them supplements) and healthily beef cows without resorting to steroids (though I suspect the industry will keep using them), so it seems not to all bad from a consumer perspective. Ultimately, it would be great to be able to produce meat without having to produce real living animals in the first place. Transmetropolitan 'human foot on a stick' anyone? I hear it's toe licking good...
Re:Dupe? Clned? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as cloning goes... you are not going to die eating a cloned animal. It is going to taste delicious and tasty just like all the other cows. It is like eating a twin. "Unnatural"? Eh, maybe. Tender and delicious? Absolutely.
Re:Dupe? Clned? (Score:5, Interesting)
While not a hoax, it was certainly hyped up by the media - but it was not the media that caused the political storm of other countries using it as an excuse to protect their markets (France in particular IIRC, though they were by no means alone) which lead to a 'collapse' of the export market (and subsequent subsidy handouts, which in the UK are greatly reshaping - for the better I think - the way we manage land).
That was a big part of the story that was hyped up (and was a big deal), as was the poor way in which the government handled the 'crisis' (which was the biggest story of all IIRC). It is true that BSE is much more common in other countries, and even seen as nothing unusual (though always a problem if it is detected in a herd) and it may well have blown over if the government hadn't handled it so oddly, though I think your right to implicate the media as bearing responsibility too.
"How many people in this world have died to mad cow disease? Less the a hundred? You have a better chance of dying in a swimming pool, driving a car, riding a bike, or being struck by lightening."
Oh for sure. Though if they had kept at it for years and we hadn't changed the practice, it could easily have been a much bigger problem further down the line, and it's entirely possible we'd discover other long term issues too (even things we might be passing on, and that might impact over generations, for example).
It seems a slim risk, a bit like a (bad) far fetch sci-fi movie plot, but the BSE/CJD has shown weird ass stuff like that can happen, with globalised food production it could represent a greater and entirely unnecessary risk.
I don't avoid GM foods particularly (personally, I like the big, round juicy fruit sprayed with no-doubt cancer causing pesticides more than the small, knobbly Organic stuff) and I think globalisation is generally a Good Thing (for political and economic reasons), it doesn't seem prudent to get cocky about this sort of thing though.
We've been there before with so many other products (e.g. if you are pregnant be sure to (not) take some Thalidomide [wikipedia.org] to help with the morning sickness and as an anti-inflammatory for your swollen ankles). It just seems crazy to rush headlong and 'assume' it will all be fine and no one will get hurt.
As far as cloning goes... you are not going to die eating a cloned animal.
If you eat one once, I'm sure it's just fine, maybe even safer than eating a random cow you don't know the history of (if the cloning process was of very high quality and all things being equal). That doesn't describe a very likely future scenario though.
If millions of people effectively eat that same cow for decades, and it turns out there is something funny about it's genetic makeup that has a knock on effect for even a small percentage of the population, then a lot of people could find themselves with some serious problems. It might be increase susceptibility to certain cancers, it could make people more prone to Alzheimer's, it could be another neurological condition, we just don't know, but we do know it can, and has happened before. And for what? To save a couple of pence on each hamburger sold (*literally*). Not worth going in for all guns blazing IMO.
I'm not try to be melodramatic about it, but think about how many screwed up two-headed, six-legged or three tailed goats get created for every decent quality clone that goes in front of the camera and even the 'good' clones don't last long - a clone is, in many ways, the age of the original PLUS it's own age (never mind the other problems under the surface due to damaged DNA).
That is, if you were to take a 35 year old human, and clone him, at 15 they'd have medical complaints (including cancers) you'd only expect to see on a 50 year old. Even with a impossibly perfect cloning process, the individual would be lucky to live to be 35 themselv
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you sure you don't mean "Protein is Protein"? Just remember, you can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor. (I wonder if anybody will get that reference).
BTW, I thought this might spawn a funny thread, but I like the serious direction it's take
Re:Dupe? Clned? (Score:5, Interesting)
"No, protein is NOT protein." Or maybe, "PrP-C is not PrP-Sc"...
Actually, I was going to post that the original prion/BSE post was a bit manic, but I agree, it has become interesting
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a bit, but then I keep thinking about it and it gets *worse*.
I think GM is in principle great, and I don't think that wizzend looking organic food tastes better than su
Technoparanoia (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, in principle, it may be just barely possible that cloning could result in a mutation that causes overproduction of a protein with no noticeable ill effects in the animal, yet survives proteolytic conditions in the stomach and digestive tract, and results in a rare neurodegenerative disease in humans.
Of course, none of this really has anything to do with cloning, which is not particularly prone to produce mutations. Such a mutation could just as well occur spontaneously and be propagated by selective breeding. For that matter, it may have already happened. Such a mutation might be naturally present in any food that we are already eating. There are a number of rare neurodegenerative diseases. It is certainly possible that some of them are due to a protein that is present in wheat or potatoes or corn (all of which have limited genetic variability). If you are really paranoid about this sort of thing, you could avoid eating any food with low genetic variability.
But wait! Who knows how big a dose of the deadly protein it takes to induce the disease? Maybe it takes only a single dose! It is certainly theoretically possible. In that case, eating foods with high genetic variability is precisely the worst thing you can do, because it would increase your risk of exposure to the deadly protein! To be safest, you should be eating only cloned foods and other foods with low genetic variability!
Of course, hardly anybody is going to worry much about the possibility that there might be a harmful prion in the foods that they already eat. It may be a theoretical possibility, but next to other food related risks, such as heart disease and food-borne infections, it is fairly obvious that prions in the diet (which in the worst known case cause human disease only very rarely) are far, far down on the worry list. But tie it to a new technology, and suddenly it is seen as horribly plausible. Fundamentally, however, it is merely another rationalization for fear of change--an unreasoning paranoia about anything that is new and different.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The nuclear reactor reference is from a clasic one-time Saturday Night Live skit. Ed Asner was hosting and played the part of a retiring nuclear engineer. His last words to the people in the plant were "just remember, you can't put too much water in a nu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unlike a carnivore, if you were to attempt to f
Re:Dup? Klned? (Score:4, Funny)
So.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hard to say. I still can't get one to say they're sorry for the painful, premature demise of the countless earthworms that are tilled to death
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're half joking, but from my experience, the most common argument against eating meat is health related and not ethics. I've you've seen the way we "manufacture" our farm animals, you might agree with them too.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to treat that argument seriously for a minute:
What about all the invertebrates killed in the production of the tonnes of grain to feed to the cow? Cows eat around 100 lbs a day, that's a lot of feed and consequently requires intensive farming (typically things like soya in the US, not so much grass - contrary to what's regularly shown in dairy commercials).
Additionally, it's reasonable to suppose that worms suffer less than cow's do when they are inadvertently killed now and then (the number killed would still be pail by comparison) as they are not as developed lifeforms. The panic, fear (stampeding) and abuse that in slaughterhouses is well known, it's not like the minimum wage failures-at-life who work in rendering plants actually give a crap about animal welfare, they've got an electric cattle prod and they know how to use it.
The increasingly popular practice of slaughtering animals by cutting their throats and leaving them to (slowly) bleed to death so that they meat can be sold as Halal is not something we should shrug off as 'okay', it's barbaric frankly. People tend not to like thinking about the production process, certainly it's not something that comes up in school, for example, it's kept out of the way where we don't have to think about it.
Typically, people say to themselves 'animals don't feel pain or fear like we do', while there is no denying that cows are not exactly equipped with the sharpest tools in the box, anyone who has had a cat or dog (or even say, a horse) knows they can be happy, bored, confused, in a bad mood and dream in a way that's instantly recognizable to us (and of course, people can and do eat cats and dogs too).
I don't think anyone is claiming to be able to quantify life in a practical way (as if 1000 worms were equal to a single cow), but that doesn't invalidate choosing to be less, rather than more destructive. It is surely better to eat what you hunt, than to hunt and kill purely for self gratification, for example.
I certainly squat/spray things round the house that are liable to bite or string me (mosquitoes, hornets, etc.) but if it's just a bee or a spider I pop in a jar and bung it out the window, it's not a big deal unless you are a total pansy. Though, I actually trapped the last mosquito in my room in a jar and chucked it out the window, though here the mosquito's - while just as noisy - are big and slow and easy to catch, much like the bees here (YMMV - you wouldn't likely catch me doing the same thing in the Mediterranean, for example).
Self styled 'hard men' often seem to love squashing spiders and other harmless bugs (even Woodlice) I've noticed, and usually not even with their bare hands (more often armed with a primitive makeshift twatting weapon). I'm not sure what that is all about and (as little as I apparently know about women) they don't seem to be impressed with that sort of behavior, perhaps other guys are and I'm just not getting it. I would maybe be a bit impressed if someone killed a hornet with their bare hands, but killing slowly moving crane flies with a bit of rolled up paper is like a level 60 ganking level 30's in Hillsbrad Foothills.
Re:So.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have exactly squat in the way of qualifications or higher education, and left home at 17 (no endless moochy moochy from parents syndrome here), I'm not a rocket scientist nor have I had inherited money to fall back on so I tend do be less than sympathetic to 'hard luck' stories from people old enough to be masters of their own destiny.
I bet good money they care and find it quite distressing, but as I've said, that they try not to think about it too much. So, while virtually everyone know what slaughterhouses are really like, great effort goes into not thinking about it and into justifying it that it's okay because they are "just animals" (who do that sort of thing to each other anyway) and that's somehow they are all totally divorced from exclusively humans feelings (like pain, fear, suffering). You see the same arguments over and over.
A while back, a TV station showed a country cook (a bit of a twat, by all accounts) taking in a "normal" family out for a weekend for some traditional country life, which included him trapping, skinning, cooking and eating a rabbit. The family on the screen (all lardy burger munchers) all accused him of being 'an animal' for being so barbaric, and the program generated record complaints, even though he wasn't the least bit inhumane about it. It was seen as unacceptably barbaric to *show* (even though far worse goes on behind closed doors).
I quite accept you might not care what happens to animals or even possibly other people - I've met several people with that attitude to animals and other people - it is sociopathic behaviour however (and generally frowned upon in western society).
It might equally be phrased as:
"Just because you are not the re-incarnation of Jebus himself should not be taken as license to spend your entire life being a complete cunt to the rest of the Universe."
As a working example of the principle in action:
When faced with a scenario like "Do you want to order (a) the veal (b) the free range game bird or the (c) vegetable bake?"
(a) The answer Jason Voorhees would pick (this is only slightly better than "Just bring me a live baby and I'll drink blood straight from it's neck").
(b) A reasonable answer.
(c) Extra credit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who made YOU God, that you can sit in judgment over our poor earthworms so? Where I come from, earthworms are what recycle all that vegetable matter back into the food chain. Without them, you wouldn't exist. Who is the higher life form NOW, Mr. Smarty-pants?
Remember, your worm is your friend!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a vegetarian, but not a vegan. I don't care if you
10x is way wrong, because not all land is suitable (Score:5, Insightful)
The best land usage is that we use the hilly areas for free-range grazing, the nice flat areas for growing plants, and various crummy areas for houses.
Of course, we do: use the nicest farmland for houses, ignore the hilly areas, and use the crummy-yet-flat areas to grow food for feedlot animals. Our usage of the best farmland for houses is probably the biggest environmental error we make; we are bound to this error by economic factors related to the "tragedy of the commons".
How about we just have less people? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather have fewer people eating and living what and where they want, than more people fighting over the scraps.
Isn't uh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I also wonder if there is much of a benefit to cloning meat anyway. I'm by no means an expert on clones but don't they take just as long as the "real thing" to reach maturity? I suppose they could only clone high quality animals for the best hauls of meat.. maybe I answered my own question. Any other ideas would be pretty cool though
Re:Isn't uh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In practice, no one is talking about cloning (for example) cattle for meat. The whole point here is to clone the bulls that are shown to produce offspring that, in turn, happen to make really good steaks (or lattes, etc). A prize bull is worth a fortune as a breeding stud. A clone of him is worth spending a fortune on, since he can go forth and make more of what's been working so well for the rancher. Breeding programs are lifelong, and even multi-(human)-generational activities. When you strike genetic gold, it's great to be able to preserve it.
Re:Isn't uh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think the point is to create an entire herd of clones. That will be prohibitively expensive for the forseeable future and would have some severe implication for disease resistance. But if Bessy produces 10% more milk than any of your other cows, and only 25% of her offspring have that trait, it's going to take you awhile to produce a herd with this trait. Wouldn't it be nice to have two or three clones of Bessys?
Problem is... (Score:3, Informative)
Castration (Score:3, Interesting)
The majority of bulls destined to become meat are castrated well before breeding age, which means no offspring. If one of them turns out to be a prize specimen, you're SOL. With cloning, you can take a blood sa
Shocking (Score:3, Insightful)
Tastes like chicken (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Diseases (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine that cow also has a hereditary problem that, when eaten, causes health problems in humans.
The cow by itself would affect a very small portion of the population.
Cloned, and undetected, it will affect many many more people.
This scares me a lot.
Make sure the cow's not nearsighted. That's fatal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Make sure the cow's not nearsighted. That's fat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Diseases (Score:5, Insightful)
In the form of a question (Score:5, Funny)
The feeling you've eaten this steak before.
What I don't get... (Score:4, Insightful)
A clone is an identical twin. The cow/sheep/dog/cat is still a cow/sheep/dog/cat, whether twinned or cloned.
The only difference is the method, with some methods being more successful at creating viable embryos than others.
An human grown from an in-vitro fertilized egg is no less human, is he/she?
A twinned human is no less human, is he/she?
A cloned human is no less human, is he/she?
The only stupidity surrounding this stems from bad science-fiction. George Lucas Must Die (hey, that sounds like a good schlock movie title)
If anyone disputes the above, I will have to ask you to step outside.
--
BMO
Re:What I don't get... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
While I don't disagree, just thinking about that really worries me. And now it will be in the back of my mind as I read posts, worrying me even more in many cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A clone is an identical twin.
That's the theory. In practice, they weren't really sure how exact the cloning process duplicated the original genetics. That's the issue -- there may have been some DNA damage in the process that caused some weird interact
Damned if that's not some faint praise. (Score:2, Insightful)
So, is that the 'every day' beef with th
Indistinguishable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it the case that all cloned animal have a shortened life-span? Although genetically the same, I don't think clones are the same developmentally. I think there are some really horrible congenital defects that happen during cloning.
I think this indistinguishable bit might be BS. Also, I would like to have a label stating "cloned meat". Many people refuse to buy knock off Rolexes, even though they can be indistinguishable from the original. It's a matter of principal to some.
So what are the arguments against? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let the marketplace decide (Score:3, Funny)
1. Certified cloned beef
2. Certified non-cloned beef
3. no-label beef - like a hot dog, you don't know what's in it.
Most people won't care but some people will pay extra to get that mmm-good taste of non-cloned beef and others will pay extra-extra to get that mmm-mmm-good-good taste only cloning provides.
Even if category #1 doesn't show up on supermarket shelves, the "green" beefeaters who fear clones will create a market for category #2.
no differences OR no known differences? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd appreciate it if someone who was more knowledgable in these matters that I am could comment on the premise: "is a cloned animal actually indistinguishable from its donor?"
For example: On average, do cloned animals live just as long as non-cloned animals? (i.e. same average lifespan, standard deviation, confidence level, etc.) I ask this because I remember reading that some cells can undergo only a finite number of replications and that there were some concerns about telomere [wikipedia.org] and aging that figured into this.
So, are there ANY genetic differences between donor and cloned animals? That we might not have noticed a difference between the donor and the clone does not necessarily mean that there IS NO difference -- only that we HAVE NOT SEEN any difference... yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this the same FDA that. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
And gee, look! We have lots and lots of fat people today with heart problems. Go figure. --Not that I'm suggesting that the Food Pyramid now playing on a school library wall near you is the cause of all those hamburgers, but it sure doesn't help, nor does it cast the FDA in a favorable light.
Anybody who trusts the FDA in any matter at all is asking to get sick. They serve big business, not the people. I don't know if a cloned chicken is going to kill me or not, and I don't care. I made the choice and went to the trouble to get to know personally the organic farmers who raise and care for the living things that I eat.
It's a contract with life you make when you are born. You will take life in order to live. Since that's the only viable option, other than death, it's important to treat the lives you are taking with love and respect.
-FL
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
And if your nice, long-haired organic-minded local farmer happens, after decades of work, to produce a bull that happens to routinely produce offspring that are efficient eaters, have strong immune systems, etc., you can bet that he'd be very happy to lengthen that bull's career by hatching out a couple of twin brothers to share the work. Cloning a stellar animal so that you can produce more later has nothing, whatsoever, to do with how organically (or not) you feed, keep, and eventually render the meat.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Ordinary "animal husbandry" has been going in that direction for decades (centuries? millennia?).
Given the choice, I'm sure the owner of the Springbank Snow Countess [roadsideattractions.ca] would have cloned her. Cloning is a shortcut.
What cloning *doesn't* do is introduce randomness. This can be a bad thing, because suppose Holsteins of the Springbank Snow Countess line were found to be vulnerable to a certain virus that targets the line, the only recourse would be to begin regular breeding again, but by that time, many other lines may have already died out through simple neglect.
An example is the Banana Crisis. The bananas you get in the supermarket are clones, every last one of them, though not in the bad science-fiction movie sense. But since every banana plant is reproduced asexually from a distinct line, diseases like Panama disease can run through entire populations, devastating farms and ultimately ending lines like the Gros Michel as a viable plant for which the Cavendish has been a suitable replacement.
Though, there isn't much of a replacement for the Cavendish at last check, except the FHIA-17, which tastes different (and both taste different than the Gros Michel).
There's nothing wrong with cloning for the end user/customer, but cloning sets up for some interesting economic effects should disease strike.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GE crops have not been engineered to produce a higher yield or a to thrive in less fertile soil. GE crops have primarily been engineered to withstand the pesticide that--surprise--is sold by the same company that sells the GE seeds (e.g. Roundup Ready