Moomin, I’m sorry, but I really haven’t been paying attention to you. I’m afraid you write a lot but you say very little.
You keep talking about manmade substances being introduced and comparing that to the natural process of living.
The types of variations “allowed” by nature, in terms of viable life, limit what will be consumed to that which is “allowed” by nature in the wild. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then look into it.
Finally, I’d be very happy to eat food off of cloned animals, at least if they were organically raised, just like other organically raised livestock. Hell, I’ve also said I’d go for the vat grown mass of cellular meat-like product.
I think the point he’s making is that other instances exist wherein the experts were nearly unanimous in their declaration of the foolproof nature of their seemingly self evidently valid findings only to be found in error after unspeakable human suffering had ensued.
The fact that it wasn’t cloning doesn’t negate the weight of the argument in my opinion. It still remains that smirking certainty on the part of those best qualified to know did nothing to avert and in fact directly caused catastrophic results.
I readily confess that this very concern is the continuing source of uneasiness for me.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The fact that it wasn’t cloning doesn’t negate the weight of the argument in my opinion. It still remains that smirking certainty on the part of those best qualified to know did nothing to avert and in fact directly caused catastrophic results.
I readily confess that this very concern is the continuing source of uneasiness for me.[/quote]
I certainly understand what you are saying. However, I am trusting nature in this instance.
Nature has a lot of rules that an animal has to pass before it can live and grow.
However, I do think there are risks with respect to shrinking the gene pool, but not in terms of whether or not we eat cloned animals.
There is certainly a form of arrogance in going down this road… I just think the danger comes from a different direction entirely.
<<< Nature has a lot of rules that an animal has to pass before it can live and grow. >>>
[/quote]
See now there’s a couple things that gnaw at me about this.
Number one: genetic science is so foundational and astronomically complex (not to mention young) that the mere fact of survival doesn’t appear to me to be conclusive evidence of the soundness of the resultant organism. Even comprehensive study with all the tools presently available may not be enough.
Number two: Are we really certain at this point how these rules even apply to a living higher mammal whose very existence is owed to our intrusion into the process?
Like I say, maybe cloning and even genetic manipulation will turn out to be a panacea of healthy, disease resistant and exceedingly nutritious food production, but I cannot believe we are at a stage of understanding advanced enough to be certain.
Admittedly it’s a bit subjective on my part, but I can’t shake the suspicion of ulteriorly motivated hurriedness.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Number one: genetic science is so foundational and astronomically complex (not to mention young) that the mere fact of survival doesn’t appear to me to be conclusive evidence of the soundness of the resultant organism. Even comprehensive study with all the tools presently available may not be enough.
Number two: Are we really certain at this point how these rules even apply to a living higher mammal whose very existence is owed to our intrusion into the process?
[/quote]
I’m sure this move is motivated by greed, so that companies can more easily attempt to duplicate highly productive and profitable animals. That is a good reason to be paranoid.
Of course, I can’t address your concerns about the soundness of the animal, but I can try to explain why that part isn’t a worry to me.
There will never actually be “conclusive evidence” of the nature people are asking for. There will always be room for questions… in fact there are people that question the safety of various food products as is.
However, what gives me comfort is the fact that we are made to eat other forms of life. That’s nature. Sure, some plants and animals are poisonous, but in general, if it’s alive we are ready to eat it.
Also, life is pretty specific in some ways. We all share a common ancestry (apologies to those that don’t like the concept of evolution) and share very many biochemical processes. One of those processes is in fact variations between individuals and accidents here and there in genes.
We’ve been eating the products of certain accidents our entire lives.
On the other end, if we are living a healthy life, our bodies will undertake tremendous stress and insult. It’s adaptive. That’s what it does. As long as what is presented to it is a compound normally present in food, we’ve evolved to handle it.
So, if a cow is enough of a cow to be born, to eat cow food, to reproduce and to produce hamburger later on down the road, then it’s meat. We aren’t designed to eat only young animals, old animals, big animals, little animals, or any other specific type.
By convention there are many things we don’t eat, but that other people do. I’m sure the composition of bugs is different than the composition of dogs, birds, cats, fish or whatnot. However, some people will eat them as well.
Obviously, it’s a personal thing, but if it’s a living animal that follows the same rules of biological life as the rest of the things on the planet, and isn’t some exotic new engineered life form, then I’m pretty comfortable chowing down on it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
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?[/quote]
One thing to consider is that genes are turned on and off at various times throughout an organism’s life. Developmental genes, like those governing puberty, are turned on when a person reaches the age their genes have deemed the right time for the “puberty genes” to be expressed. Many other such genes exist.
If a clone were to have a serious problem with a developmental gene or some other gene that is not expressed until after it has been decided that it lived long enough to be viable and eaten, then there could be a problem that could slip through the cracks. Granted I have no idea how this could actually effect the meat produced by an animal, but I believe there should at least be “clinical trial”-like experiments before this cloned meat is approved for the general public.
You can say that I am just speculating, but I’m basing my scenario on the science AND your premise that the organism is safe to eat if it is viable. Just because it makes it through infancy does not mean that all of its genes are error-free. I believe YOU are also speculating. None of us actually knows if it is OK to eat cloned meat or not because it hasn’t happened yet.
I do have to admit that since one normally cooks meat from animals like cows or chickens and the digestive tract does a wonderful job of chewing up everything we eat into its basic building blocks, I can’t really imagine how cloned meat could hurt people. But I’d still like the safety to be proven before we all just assume “It lived to (insert age here), its ok to eat!”
[quote]Dabubzilla wrote:
You can say that I am just speculating, but I’m basing my scenario on the science AND your premise that the organism is safe to eat if it is viable. Just because it makes it through infancy does not mean that all of its genes are error-free. I believe YOU are also speculating. None of us actually knows if it is OK to eat cloned meat or not because it hasn’t happened yet.[/quote]
Actually, I’m not even concerned that it’s genes are error free. What I’m concerned about is that it is a living organism that appears to be a cow. I don’t have the ability to describe it, but how life “works” is fairly strict in some senses. If the cow is a living breathing cow, whether or not it has problems with puberty, it’s still a red blooded cow.
Well, like I alluded to above, proving it is never going to be possible to the satisfaction of those that simply don’t like or will never understand the process of cloning.
Heck, I’m not claiming expertise on the process of cloning, but I do believe in reading that you can’t just throw any old genetic material together and end up with something that looks like a cow but is really a space alien with biological processes totally unseen on our planet before.
It has to breathe air, pump blood, grow muscles, have a working nervous system, have a working digestive system, have a brain coordinating everything… and these systems all have to work together or it won’t survive.
From that point, assuming it wasn’t being fed lead and PCB’s, I’m willing to trust that digestion will reduce whatever it is to it’s constituent parts… it can’t be worse than whatever it is I’m already eating!
Shoot, I eat refined carbs, I take supplements, I will take medicine if I need to, and these things are much less likely to be part of my natural food supply than a cloned cow.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Dabubzilla wrote:
You can say that I am just speculating, but I’m basing my scenario on the science AND your premise that the organism is safe to eat if it is viable. Just because it makes it through infancy does not mean that all of its genes are error-free. I believe YOU are also speculating. None of us actually knows if it is OK to eat cloned meat or not because it hasn’t happened yet.
Actually, I’m not even concerned that it’s genes are error free. What I’m concerned about is that it is a living organism that appears to be a cow. I don’t have the ability to describe it, but how life “works” is fairly strict in some senses. If the cow is a living breathing cow, whether or not it has problems with puberty, it’s still a red blooded cow.
I do have to admit that since one normally cooks meat from animals like cows or chickens and the digestive tract does a wonderful job of chewing up everything we eat into its basic building blocks, I can’t really imagine how cloned meat could hurt people. But I’d still like the safety to be proven before we all just assume “It lived to (insert age here), its ok to eat!”
Well, like I alluded to above, proving it is never going to be possible to the satisfaction of those that simply don’t like or will never understand the process of cloning.
Heck, I’m not claiming expertise on the process of cloning, but I do believe in reading that you can’t just throw any old genetic material together and end up with something that looks like a cow but is really a space alien with biological processes totally unseen on our planet before.
It has to breathe air, pump blood, grow muscles, have a working nervous system, have a working digestive system, have a brain coordinating everything… and these systems all have to work together or it won’t survive.
From that point, assuming it wasn’t being fed lead and PCB’s, I’m willing to trust that digestion will reduce whatever it is to it’s constituent parts… it can’t be worse than whatever it is I’m already eating!
Shoot, I eat refined carbs, I take supplements, I will take medicine if I need to, and these things are much less likely to be part of my natural food supply than a cloned cow.[/quote]
Just because an animal appears to grow normally does not make it safe to eat. Living animals are carriers for all sorts of diseases and parasites. You expressed concerns about mad cow disease previously. All cows that suffer from that particular disease grow up “normally” and appear to indistinguishable from any other cow until the damage caused to their brain by the abnormal protein in their system. It takes years before this appears, yet the worry for humans consuming such meat causing similar problems is very real. This protein is absorbed throught their disgestive tracts. It is not a huge leap of faith to suggest that cloning meat could cause some form of longterm disease resulting from abnormal cell changes introduced by the cloning process.
Just because something is “allowed” in nature does not automatically mean it is “safe” especially when it comes to food. E-coli is a natural organism, it is not safe to consume yet it is made up of proteins, carbohydrates and fats just like anything else we care to put into our digestive tracts.
You say that proving it is safe beyond a shadow of a doubt will never happen? Will our knowledge and understanding not have advanced significantly in the next 100 years that we might have less of a chance of screwing things up? Is the need for cloned animals in the food chain so great we cannot afford to wait another 100 or so (arbitrarily, less or more may be prudent depending on the rate of maturation of the field of genetics)? You say that it wont be possible to prove it to the satisfaction of those that dont understand cloning. How does it then follow that it IS possible to prove it to those that do understand it? You appear to be suggesting that anyone that knows enough about cloning will know that cloned meat is safe to eat.
Read the above link. Digestion of food stuffs is not complete by any stretch of the imagination. The body absorbs things from the digestive tract that are undigestible. Returning to mad cow disease, the prion protein responisble for turning brains to jelly is absorbed through the disgestive tract. It has since been found that this protein has such an unusual molecular structure that it is resistant to breakdown by protease enzymes. It is also resistant to incineration, meaning that cooking infected meat has no effect whatsoever in terms of safety. It was exactly the same assumption, that meat is simply protein and that digestion and processing will break it up into its constituent parts that led to cows being fed the processed remains of other cows. This is what caused mad cow disease!
You mentioned refined carbs as a supporting argument. These are a case in point. Simply processing our carbohydrates has resulted in a health crisis of epidemic proportions. Hydrogenation of fats, seemed like a great idea at the time but after we discovered the wonderous power of trans fat to clog our arteries, our endeavours dont seem quite so intelligent now. Meddling with our food has proven to have disastrous consequences for the health of the general population time and time again.
