MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Monday, September 15, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 48.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Attack of the Clone Burgers

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

The FDA has recently approved the sale of meat from cloned animals. Would you eat it?

Yes, cloned meat is the same as the other stuff. Get over it.
13
46%
No, the idea of cloned meat is just plain icky.
5
18%
I don't eat meat, so I don't care.
0
No votes
I don't eat meat, but I still think this is a sick idea.
1
4%
I approve of the idea, but I think all cloned food products should be so labeled so that consumers can choose wisely.
9
32%
 
Total votes : 28

Postby tibor » Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:09 pm

TheBookPolice wrote:
tibor wrote:Here's a non-toxic example for you - hundreds of years ago, the greatest scientists in the world knew the earth was flat.


LABEL THE PLANET! "NO FIRST STEP!" "OBJECTS UNDER YOUR FEET MAY BE MORE SPHERICAL THAN THEY APPEAR!" "IT'S ALL DOWNHILL FROM HERE!"

Come on. Examples are great. But let's keep 'em a little topical.


I don't know how else to explain it. Science is always advancing. This expansion of our knowledge means that some things that we once believed to be true (or safe) are actually false (or harmful). Just about everything right now says that cloning is fine, but that doesn't mean that will be the case in 40 years.

Food is required for people to live. So, if you're going to fuck with food in new ways so Agribusinesses can make more money, at least label it so I can choose an alternative if that's how I swing.
tibor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:55 am

Postby Chuck_Schick » Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:28 pm

tibor wrote:
Chuck_Schick wrote:There is nothing about cloned tissue which results in toxicity.

I didn't say there was. You're drawing those lines, Chuck, not me.

No, you drew them when you chose your examples. If you don't want me to make such an inference, you should articulate your argument better.

And by the way, I'm not against the labeling of cloned food products per se, but I do agree with TBP that unless we're going to actually educate consumers (like, you know, start teaching science in schools again instead of doing stupid shit like pretending evolution is up for debate), then such labels are merely likely to foment a lot of irrational fear. I mean, there's a reason that yogurt containers list "active cultures" rather than "live bacteria." But, to my knowledge, there's no such innocuous analogue for cloning. And given the whole stem cell debate we've been witness to, it's clear most people don't understand shit-one about this particular discipline.

By the way, not all cloned animals expire prematurely. And there are plenty of scientific theories being tested to explain the phenomenon even as we debate this. Yes, "science is always advancing" as you say, but you would seem to have us believe that such advancement results in the illumination of past mistakes more often than real breakthroughs. I'd contend it's quite the opposite.
Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:35 pm

tibor wrote: ... hundreds of years ago, the greatest scientists in the world knew the earth was flat.


Uh ... talk about apples and oranges ...
For starters, your example is the very epitome of irrelevance. Add to that the fact that it's complete bullshit and I don't know what you've got.
"The greatest scientists in the world" (a label which is pretty much meaningless prior to the 17th century,) as well as anyone who wasn't an ignorant rube, have thought the Earth was a sphere since at least Pythagoras, which would be thousands of years ago, rather than mere hundreds. The evidence for this is obvious and easily demonstrated, as it already was by the time of Aristotle (ca. 350 BC.)
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Postby TheBookPolice » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:09 pm

Chuck_Schick wrote:No, you drew them when you chose your examples. If you don't want me to make such an inference, you should articulate your argument better.

And by the way, I'm not against the labeling of cloned food products per se, but I do agree with TBP that unless we're going to actually educate consumers (like, you know, start teaching science in schools again instead of doing stupid shit like pretending evolution is up for debate), then such labels are merely likely to foment a lot of irrational fear. I mean, there's a reason that yogurt containers list "active cultures" rather than "live bacteria." But, to my knowledge, there's no such innocuous analogue for cloning. And given the whole stem cell debate we've been witness to, it's clear most people don't understand shit-one about this particular discipline.


I guess I was non-stating my supposition that any increase in labelling would not necessarily be accompanied by an increase in education. If people had a chance to get smarter about this stuff, then yes, label away. It's the people who don't know shit, or think they do but actually don't, who are the ones waiting to take to the streets.

Oh, and "gyro meat" rather than "lamb/beef loaf." Gyro meat doesn't offend the cute-etarians or the discerning aesthetes.
TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8369
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East

Postby Marvell » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:19 pm

TheBookPolice wrote:Oh, and "gyro meat" rather than "lamb/beef loaf." Gyro meat doesn't offend the cute-etarians or the discerning aesthetes.


On the other hand, there's a real onus against it among gyro-copter pilots.
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6980
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby cute hat » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:38 pm

Okay, how about this.
What if I am concerned about the socio-economic impact of cloning on small-scale or local farms? Seems to me that cloning could have a negative impact on family farms, and only benefit corporate mega-farm operations.
Just give me the information, please, and I can decide whether or not I wish to purchase or consume the product in question based on whatever criteria, rational or irrational, matter to me.
cute hat
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:53 am
Location: a dump like this

Postby Oprah » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:50 pm

A cloned-Klum,
Appetite
Would whet.

Image
Oprah
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: On the Down Low

Postby massimo » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:03 pm

cute hat wrote:Just give me the information, please, and I can decide whether or not I wish to purchase or consume the product in question based on whatever criteria, rational or irrational, matter to me.

+1
More information is always better.
massimo
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1704
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:16 pm

cute hat wrote:What if I am concerned about the socio-economic impact of cloning on small-scale or local farms? Seems to me that cloning could have a negative impact on family farms, and only benefit corporate mega-farm operations.

I'd argue you've probably got it backwards.

Although this thread seems to be operating under the assumption that cloned animals will be cut up and used as meat, the reality is that that's probably not cost-effective. What is cost-effective, however, is cloning prize bulls, which routinely fetch ridiculously high prices, to make them more widely available for the purposes of siring better-quality offspring in the traditional way, thereby producing higher quality meat and milk across the board.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Postby TAsunder » Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:49 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Although this thread seems to be operating under the assumption that cloned animals will be cut up and used as meat, the reality is that that's probably not cost-effective. What is cost-effective, however, is cloning prize bulls, which routinely fetch ridiculously high prices, to make them more widely available for the purposes of siring better-quality offspring in the traditional way, thereby producing higher quality meat and milk across the board.


I'm confused by this thread more than ever now. What exactly is the question? Is it what you suggest above, cloning for the purpose of genetic enhancement / bene gesserit kwisatz haderach of cow type scenario, is it cutting up a cloned cow and eating it, or is it tissue engineered meat right ouf the lab? Because I would have a differing level of skepticism for each (none, tiny amount, moderate to severe amount, respectively).

I would like to think you are right, but I know from my first job out of college that there already is a flourishing market for bull semen and genetic manipulation. It would really be the cost of cloning that bull versus the cost of a certain volume of its bull goo. I don't know how much the stuff costs but I can't imagine paying for a clone is cheaper. At least not yet. What was it, $50,000 for a cloned pet in that place that closed up north?
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Postby Velveeta » Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:04 pm

I think that as this becomes more prevalent in the marketplace, what you will see is labeling for marketing purposes that states that certain meat is NOT from cloned animals, the same way you see non-GMO, organic, cage-free labeling on premium products now. So this cloned meat will be food for the poor.

These things are always brought up and defended with the idea that we could feed the hungry. Yeah right. Are we feeding the hungry now, with the higher yield technologies brought about by GMO? The last I checked, people were still starving in the world.

What about humane treatment of animals prior to "harvesting" them. Cloning them makes it just that much easier to treat that animal life as the equivalent of a manufactured object. I have no problem with killing animals for food. I have big problems with not respecting that life and the inhumane culture of big agriculture.

My big problem with cloning is that it is one more step in big agriculture's market manipulations.
Big agriculture sucks and the FDA is in their pocket. The FDA will not even comprehensively test our meat for Mad Cow Disease, so can we trust them on this?

Whether it's harmful to my body or not, I will not be consuming cloned animals if I can help it.
Velveeta
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:33 pm

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:10 pm

Velveeta wrote:Are we feeding the hungry now, with the higher yield technologies brought about by GMO? The last I checked, people were still starving in the world.
There's a helluva lot fewer of'em in the places that have embraced GM crops, though, and there'd be a lot fewer still if the alarmists weren't fomenting unnecessary fear and panic in the leaders of countries where they'd do even more good.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Postby SombreroFallout » Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:13 pm

white_rabbit wrote:Because the bible says man will have dominion over all the animals on Earth. When you start fucking with humans, it's man having dominion over God. That's their thought process, anyway.


You and I both no that no foron would ever start fucking with humans.

The issue hasn't ever been about toxicity or food safety. Like food irradiation, it's been about everything else. Anybody care to dispel those concerns?
SombreroFallout
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:15 pm

Postby StateEmp » Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:35 am

Does cloned meat taste like chicken?
StateEmp
Senior Member
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:11 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby berbo » Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:26 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
Velveeta wrote:Are we feeding the hungry now, with the higher yield technologies brought about by GMO? The last I checked, people were still starving in the world.
There's a helluva lot fewer of'em in the places that have embraced GM crops,


I don't believe it.


Prof. Wagstaff wrote:though, and there'd be a lot fewer still if the alarmists weren't fomenting unnecessary fear and panic in the leaders of countries where they'd do even more good.


Before GMO crops were approved for sale, it was claimed that there was no chance that they would spread.

However, in one case, not only did the seeds escape to another farm, but Monsanto successfully sued the farmer for violation of their patent!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/percyschmeiser.html

Similar intellectual property issues would likely arise with cloned animals.
berbo
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: Inyo Mine

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar