Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1
    xxDoLLarBiLLxx is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Playaz Club
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Clone Foods?? what's next??

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/...sc/cloned_food
    Quote Originally Posted by Yahoo!news

    Calif. bill requires cloned food labels


    SACRAMENTO - 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 for manufacturers to sell meat and milk from cloned cows, pigs and goats without any special labeling, although a bill introduced in Congress would require it.

    Sen. Carole Migden, the San Francisco Democrat who authored the bill, said consumers deserve to know what they're buying and to be able to decide if they want to eat food from cloned animals. That is especially true because cloning isn't perfected and the long-term consequences of eating artificially produced animals cannot yet be studied, she said.

    "Wouldn't you like to know if you're drinking milk from a cloned cow, or feeding your children pork chops from a somatic cell nuclear transfer event?" Migden said during a news conference last week before the Senate Health Committee voted 6-4 along party lines to support her bill.

    At the conference, Migden was flanked by organic dairy farmers and other supporters wearing cow costumes and carrying placards that read "Not Milk — Cloned food is coming but you can stop it."

    Migden said her bill isn't designed to undermine the Food and Drug Administration but noted the agency's problems in approving and regulating painkillers.

    "They're an overburdened agency and not always 100 percent correct. They've been duped before on ... Celebrex and Vioxx," she said.

    Migden pointed to recent polls she said suggest the FDA's ruling on cloned food could be influential with consumers.

    A recent Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology survey, for example, found that 64 percent of consumers were leery of animal cloning. But a University of Maryland poll found that a nearly equal percentage said they would buy, or consider buying, such food if the government said it was safe.

    If her bill passes, Migden said she will work with state agencies on the wording of a label.

    "Whether it's 'cloned,' 'artificially created' or whatever, it won't be encumbering," she said.

    Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City, has introduced a similar bill in that chamber.

    A bill introduced in Congress by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (news, bio, voting record), D-Maryland, would require cloned meat or milk products to carry a straightforward label: "This product is from a cloned animal or its progeny."

    The California Cattlemen's Association and other industry groups oppose the legislation.

    "We're sort of a little ahead of ourselves," said Matt Byrne, the association's executive vice president. "There's no meat or milk from cloned animals on the market, and there's no expectation that this will be an issue any time soon."

    The FDA in December issued a preliminary report saying there was no evidence that eating meat from cloned cows, pigs and goats — or their offspring — presents concerns about food safety. The agency could grant final approval for manufacturers to sell cloned animal products by year's end.

    Farmers and food safety experts who testified in support of Migden's bill said they feel a sense of urgency to make sure products from cloned animals are labeled. Without them, cloned DNA could quickly infiltrate the nation's food chain.

    "Cloning is a radical new form of reproduction, and the long-term ramifications are unknown," said Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation, the Dark Side of the American Meal," who testified in support of Migden's legislation. "This bill gives consumers the ability to choose if they want to be part of a huge food-safety experiment."

    According to research by Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, the FDA has based its preliminary findings on limited samples, said Jean Halloran, the group's director of food policy initiatives. Findings that cloned pork could be safe, for example, were based on tests of just five pigs, while the findings about cows' milk were from 43 cows.

    "Considering that 90 percent of cloned animals die because there's something wrong with them, we don't consider that to be an adequate safety assessment of what millions of people would be eating and drinking from millions of different animals," Halloran said.

    "If cloning is such a wonderful thing, they should be proud to put a cloned label on their product."

    Another consumer group, the Center for Food Safety, has challenged the FDA's findings. The center said they were based on scant data from peer-reviewed studies and failed to consider possible side effects of cloning.

    With or without labels, consumers have at least one clue they're not eating cloned meat: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's green organic seal, given to food produced without pesticides or antibiotics, also means clone-free, according to the agency.
    though some of this might already have known this but this is a new development for me. If we can clone food, how come food is still expensive and there's still people starving to death? not to forget cloning still isnt perfected so who knows what the consequence of eating cloning food might be???

  2. #2
    98abaile's Avatar
    98abaile is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    An Englishman in a shithole somewhere in Wales.
    Posts
    7,892

    Default

    Soylent green. Probably not relevant, but I felt I had to post it anyway.

  3. #3
    mystic_guard_sinoel is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The 14th Moon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    We should test the cloned food on people who are starving to death. It's a win-win.


  4. #4
    98abaile's Avatar
    98abaile is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    An Englishman in a shithole somewhere in Wales.
    Posts
    7,892

    Default

    Or just make the food out of the starving people. *cough*spoiler*cough*

  5. #5
    mystic_guard_sinoel is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The 14th Moon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 98abaile View Post
    Or just make the food out of the starving people. *cough*spoiler*cough*
    that works too but I think that I'd want a little more meat on what I eat.


  6. #6
    Ishman is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    above the ecliptic plane
    Posts
    1,999

    Default

    Because cloned food would be MORE expensive – In fact, I can't even see a good reason as to why they're doing it.

    Cloned animals, while being genetically the same as the animal they're cloned from, are also just as genetically old.

    Thus, all the mutations that have built up, be it from viral infection, free radical damage, or just general destabilization, they're basically ass-fucked from the get-go.

    And tis expensive as hell.

    Seriously, what's the point?

  7. #7
    coolerimmortal is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    5,935

    Default

    Soylent Green is people!

  8. #8
    Jakko's Avatar
    Jakko is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishman View Post
    Because cloned food would be MORE expensive In fact, I can't even see a good reason as to why they're doing it.

    Cloned animals, while being genetically the same as the animal they're cloned from, are also just as genetically old.

    Thus, all the mutations that have built up, be it from viral infection, free radical damage, or just general destabilization, they're basically ass-fucked from the get-go.

    And tis expensive as hell.

    Seriously, what's the point?
    The only possible reason I can think of is if people wanted to eat endangered food, like certain shellfish, snakes, ect.

  9. #9
    xxDoLLarBiLLxx is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Playaz Club
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    90% of cloned animals die. that enough should tell you not to eat cloned animals. Imagine some strange scenario where the eaten cloned meat triggers some type of mutation inside the eater(human). i just want to see what it would be like...

  10. #10
    adonai is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,630

    Default

    ^ No...they all do...all living thing eventually die.

    If you mean that they have a much higher mortality rate, that would be because (as Ishman said) they are genetically old, they should be dying.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162