FDA Oks Food From Cloned Animals

Nutrition
41

[quote]Moomin wrote:

If you can then you either somehow know more than the rest of the human race, or you dont fully comprehend the possible danger. Ironically, this is the point that im trying to make, we need to be aware that we may not be fully aware of all the danger! This isnt scaremongering, its learning from past mistakes of the human race. Big ones![/quote]

I agree.
That is all that I’m saying.
It’s not that we’re “scared” about cloning.
Some of us just want to know what we’re putting in our mouths when dinner time rolls around.

42

I have to add that even though I like Vroom and respect him as a clear thinker, even in this thread, the burden of proof, as far as I’m concerned, is on them to conclusively establish safety. Not on the consuming public. Meat has been eaten in its present incarnation since the dawn of human history.

Cloning is paradoxical in that it simultaneously harnesses foundational processes of living organisms at the genetic level and then purports to reproduce those organisms in ultra mundane similarity.

Apparently ultra mundane results notwithstanding, the radicalness of the process still scares me enough to prefer to pass until at least such a time when a discernible advantage emerges to make the concerns a worthwhile gamble.

43

a slap in the face to the agricultural market. i wonder how many people will be out of work as corporations with the money to capitilize on cloning take over food supply chains, or if the gov’t will take charge of our food by stating that cloning needs to be regulated.

44

The issue will probably be finalised outside of america. You might ban it, but the someone will find a way to sell it to the developing world.

I would like to atleast see someone do some long term experiments feeding other omnivores cloned meat over 10 years or so before it hits out shelves. Id also like to see standard animals be the markets default throughout the introduction aswell.

45

I think cloned meat isn’t fancy enough for me.

I want to eat one of those animals they put into orbit or maybe a famous animal from TV or the movies or a Kentucky Derby winner.

46

Maybe someone else brought this up and I missed it.

Aren’t clones as old at birth, genetically, as the originals from whom they’ve been cloned? Are there possible issues with eating “older” meat… that may be twice as old as it would usually be when going in to slaughter? Doesn’t the genetic age mean that the resultant cow could be affected much earlier in life by diseases and defects that would never otherwise be seen in a population of cows who are slaughtered before getting to such an advanced age?

Someone like Rainjack would be better to answer this kind of question, since I know virtually nothing about cows or slaughtering.

47

Too many posts by people who only think they know what they’re talking about.

48

Just a note, I saw a blurb in the newspaper on this issue…

It said the FDA “studied the issue” for five years and decided that cloned food is virtually indistinguishable from non-cloned food.

Anyway, how many of you worried about cloned food would readily eat artificially cultured meat grown in a vat? :wink:

Honestly, while I’m generally not one to trust the FDA, since their motivations are too aligned with big companies, I still haven’t heard even one good theory about why cloned food would conceivably be different.

Half-baked theories don’t count! :stuck_out_tongue:

49

I haven’t even posited a theory on how it would be any different. I don’t know. What I DO know is what I have now and if cloning doesn’t give me anything better or even save me money then why would I want to even take the first step down that path? The bird in my hand is just fine thanks and I’m not even being promised 2 in the bush.

I would eat cloned meat far sooner than I would eat artificially cultured meat either at this point. I’m searching here for a reason to believe why thousands of years of meat production is being improved upon. There may turn out to be one, but right now the message is “hey folks the FDA says cloned meat is good. Ain’t that great?” Frankly… no.

50

[quote]vroom wrote:
Half-baked theories don’t count! :p[/quote]

I don’t know if you meant this in response to my post. If you did, I think it’s an unfair characterization. You have said in numerous posts how there’s no reason to believe that the cloned animal is any different from a regular animal, and that as long as it survives to become a calf, it is identical to a regular calf.

I’m pointing out a solid difference between cloned and regular calves, unless something has changed since Dolly was cloned.

51

[quote]JonP wrote:
Too many posts by people who only think they know what they’re talking about. [/quote]

Do you? Please enlighten us!

52

All I know about cloning is that it’s about the most radically unnatural method of producing food as we’ve been asked to embrace to this point in history.

It may turn out to be fine or even better, but the FDA’s solemn word and nothing more is less than entirely convincing.

53

Hmm, actually, it’s probably a bit of a funny area, legally, for the FDA to be poking around.

54

I’m all about meat grown in a lab. The way most mass-produced food is made now-a-days I dont see how this would be any different. The process is still years away from what I remember hearing about it, but getting some lean ass steak with a good flavor would be excellent.

Might even be able to take my would-be-then wife out and get 2 steaks instead of a side of veggies and some potatoes.

56

[quote]Brett Tucek wrote:
Seeing as how I’m no sheep expert, I can’t be sure of this, but I’ve read that Dolly died early because she was kept indoors, which isn’t really a normal place to keep a sheep.[/quote]

Because the original cell used to make the clone has degraded over time due to cellular division and environmental effects. It appears that my information is out of date, according to wikipedia:

"There were early claims that Dolly the Sheep had accelerated aging. Aging of this type is thought to be due to shortening of telomeres, regions at the tips of chromosomes which prevent genetic threads fraying every time a cell divides.

Over time telomeres get worn down until cell-division is no longer possible ? this is thought to be a cause of aging. However, subsequent studies showed that, if anything, Dolly’s telomere were longer than normal."

I’d like to see more info, though.

57

Neph, I’m not convinced there is any merit to your supposition.

When reproduction occurs naturally, it also happens based on genetic material that has been maintained by the organism for the life of the parent.

Doesn’t it?

58

Here’s a quote from wikipedia’s “Dolly the Sheep” page:

"Premature aging

In 1999 research was published in the journal Nature suggesting that Dolly may have been susceptible to premature aging, due to shortened telomeres in her cells[4]. It was speculated that these were passed on from her donor sibling, who was six years old when the genetic material was taken from her, so that Dolly may have been genetically six years old at birth. This is because telomere length is reduced after each cell division, which requires DNA replication before mitosis occurs. The polymerase, part of the replication machinery, cannot reach the end of the chromosome being replicated and clips a little of the telomere at the end off every time replication occurs.

Possible signs of her condition were reported in January 2002, when Dolly was five years old. She had developed a potentially debilitating form of arthritis at an unusually early age. This supported the theory of premature senescence, although Dr. Dai Grove-White of the Faculty of Veterinary Science at Liverpool University was reported as saying, “Conceivably arthritis could be due to the cloning but equally it could not be. For all we know, she may have damaged her leg jumping over a gate and developed arthritis.”

Others speculate that Dolly’s arthritis resulted from her lifestyle as a scientific curiosity and protected specimen due to a lack of normal outdoor exercise and unnatural stress on her joints.

The arthritis further fueled worry among some that this form of cloning may not be appropriate for mammals, and there is now a consensus both in- and outside scientific community that at this point the risk of unforeseen effects of cloning on the clone makes experiments in human reproductive cloning premature and unethical."

59

Aw crap, what idiot put a “reset” button on the post editing page?

–

Anyway, I think what you are pointing to is still speculation…

However, it seems to me that it isn’t the age of the genetic material, per se, as much as a possible shortening of telomeres, which would in theory reduce the lifespan.

I know there is some research in this area, so I don’t know if they are able to adjust telomere length at this point or not. It’s been quite a while now since the original cloning experiments were undertaken.

Off topic, but this is a great area for research. I’m all for finding ways to understand and counter aging!

60

LOL. Just thinking, if Dolly was kept indoors, I bet you her diet was crappy… she’d be given some artificial carbohydrate laden kibble instead of grass.

No wonder she died early! :wink:

61

[quote]vroom wrote:
Aw crap, what idiot put a “reset” button on the post editing page?

–

Anyway, I think what you are pointing to is still speculation…

However, it seems to me that it isn’t the age of the genetic material, per se, as much as a possible shortening of telomeres, which would in theory reduce the lifespan.

I know there is some research in this area, so I don’t know if they are able to adjust telomere length at this point or not. It’s been quite a while now since the original cloning experiments were undertaken.

Off topic, but this is a great area for research. I’m all for finding ways to understand and counter aging![/quote]

Did anyone bother to read my last post? Dollys telomeres and those of cloned animals in general have since been found out to be LONGER than normal. She still had problems.

However it may “seem” to you, you are either ignoring the facts or didnt understand my post. You keep bringing up sexual reproduction as a comparison but clearly dont grasp the massive differences. In sexual reproduction, each party only donates HALF its DNA, so the effect of accumulated cell damage is instantly halved. As I mentioned before, differentiated body cells only transcribe the DNA relevant to their function meaning they can pick up a lot of damage and still perform their job.

The rate of DNA damage per day is something like 100000 amino acids. The body has a rapid repair and error correction system in place to remedy this damage. Saying the age of the DNA is irrelevant because it doesnt seem to matter in sexual reproduction is a weak argument. You’re assuming the error correction is the same for every cell in the body, which is not the case.

Despite the details, you’re still missing the point. I’m saying there are countless cases in history where we have fucked up massively because our narrow minded view of the world and lack of understanding meant that we had no idea we were doing something wrong. If we had waited and learned more first instead of being too eager to jump into things, a lot of suffering could be avoided.

Ill mention again thalidomide. An enantiomer is a mirror image. This is a result of 3D space, molecules and objects can be identical, have the same structure and composition yet be completely different. An analogy would be shoes, you can left shoes and right shoes, they are both the same, yet they are also different, and non superimposable. As a result, a pure compound can be a racemic mixture of both “hands” of a molecule. Chemists knew all about enantiomers, yet they released thalidomide as mixture.

Imagine their surprise when the drug, used to combat morning sickness in pregnant women, turned out to be an extremely powerful teratogen and caused birth defects in over 10000 children. The reason was that different enantiomers can have different biological effects, even though the compounds have (nearly) identical physical characteristics. Such a simple oversight caused enormous harm.

Even in this day and age science at the biological level is still extremely primitive, it amounts to sit back and see what happens. We just dont understand things well enough to justify being able to feed this shit to the mass population. We can only speculate as to the long term effects.

Even with regards to environmental pollution, things are still surfacing now that should give you cause for concern. It has been found that certain combinations of low level pesticides can cause parkinsons and other neurological diseases. Kind of like the jokers poisoned goods in batman. If you’re unlucky enough to get that combination exposure in your diet, you’ll suffer. This pokes holes at the “everything is a poison, it just depends on dose” argument for low levels of carcinogens and pesticides being present in the food chain.

As far as im concerned, the case for cloned meat is groundless. Everyone who thinks it safe should volunteer for the clinical trials and find out. We have ample food at the moment. There is nothing wrong with meat as it is.