OK, teatpuller, but the cloned animals still would need to be born, raised and farmed - how are you positing that they're making farmers obsolete?

Vat meat, yes - I have a hard time believing that anything that grew and lived in a test tube without eating, drinking, or breating could taste good - but, preseumably, you could request a cloned, free-range, grass-fed cow.

Animal husbandry and cattle breeding are skills. A new technology like cloning makes those skills less relevant. The use of hormones and antibiotics is analogous. They make up for a lot of poor management in the herd. One of the reasons I don't own a dairy farm anymore is that I refused to use BST. So be it. I'm an anachronism.

Moreover it's not going to be a 50 cow dairy in Wisconsin that is going to be using cloning, it's too expensive and too risky. It will be your 1000-10,000 head corporate operations where $20,000 is chump change. They lose that much money in dead calves in a week. A lot of small dairy farmers live on $20,000/year!

Aaron Deacon wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:If you had the original and the clone, there isn't even any way of telling which is which... and not because we don't have the technology, but because the difference doesn't exist.

Wouldn't the original be older?

Smartass

Dmnkly wrote:

Aaron Deacon wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:If you had the original and the clone, there isn't even any way of telling which is which... and not because we don't have the technology, but because the difference doesn't exist.

Wouldn't the original be older?

Smartass

I actually don't mean to be a smartass about it, I just don't buy the argument that they're identical, even though they may be technically genetically identical. Look at identical twins.

I'm suspect of a scientific argument based on a fairly short (historically) period of study, very limited sample, and an argument that two things are exact copies of one another when, just by simple observation, one can identify lots of differences.

Which isn't to say I'm convinced that there are serious health risks either (the monoculture argument is much more disconcerting to me), but I do think science's reassurances that whatever science has perfected is beyond reproach is a little misleading and self-serving.

Aaron Deacon wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:

Aaron Deacon wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:If you had the original and the clone, there isn't even any way of telling which is which... and not because we don't have the technology, but because the difference doesn't exist.

Wouldn't the original be older?

Smartass

I actually don't mean to be a smartass about it, I just don't buy the argument that they're identical, even though they may be technically genetically identical. Look at identical twins.

I'm suspect of a scientific argument based on a fairly short (historically) period of study, very limited sample, and an argument that two things are exact copies of one another when, just by simple observation, one can identify lots of differences.

Which isn't to say I'm convinced that there are serious health risks either (the monoculture argument is much more disconcerting to me), but I do think science's reassurances that whatever science has perfected is beyond reproach is a little misleading and self-serving.

No, that's not what I meant. I didn't mean that you couldn't tell them apart, I meant that you couldn't tell which was the clone. You can identify a cow that's been treated with growth hormones. You can identify a cow that's had clam genes spliced into its DNA. You can't with a clone, because it's the same creature and it's born and raised just the same as any other. Its genetic makeup just happens to be identical to another.

And if someone wanted to start manufacturing pipes out of solid gold, would it not be unreasonable for plumbers to reassure you that they will not explode, even without extensive testing? There are certain things that, even if we don't have the education to understand, are obvious to those who do. My wife, for example, is very careful about the difference between "testing so far indicates there is (not) a problem and that body of evidence is (not) significant" and "no, that can't happen, the body just doesn't work like that." No, she might not be able to assure you with certainty that this new drug won't have unintended effects in 40 years, but she can safely say that it won't cause your brain to crawl into your stomach. When it comes to cloning food products, just because the lack of danger isn't that obvious to us doesn't mean it isn't that obvious to those who are highly educated on the subject.

Dmnkly wrote:No, that's not what I meant. I didn't mean that you couldn't tell them apart, I meant that you couldn't tell which was the clone.

Ah, that makes more sense.

When it comes to cloning food products, just because the lack of danger isn't that obvious to us doesn't mean it isn't that obvious to those who are highly educated on the subject.

I understand, and as such, I don't have any fear that eating product from (or sired by) a cloned animal will have any adverse affect on me, healthwise.

I do think that the consequences of limited genetic stock are uncertain, and I mistrust attempts at certitude in that regard, though I well understand the consequences may not be adverse at all.

riddlemay wrote:The one thing that could change my mind is if it began to appear that cloned meat was actually superior in flavor, tenderness, all the good stuff, to uncloned. I don't know if that could ever be a promise cloned meat can make, but I wouldn't doubt that it's down the road. If that happened, and there'd been some years of safe use established, I suppose I could drift that way.

I think superior food is a quite unlikely outcome. We need to be clear that this about cloning animals, not meat. There's much evidence that the flavor of meat comes more from how the animal is raised than from what breed it is. Jamon iberico is so wonderful because of the acorn diet. A different feed will produce a different product for human consumption. So will whether the animal was allowed to range freely or was confined for most of its life.

This is the main reason I'm against animal cloning and other efforts that are sure to lead to the commoditization of food. All of these efforts lead to food bred and raised for increased shelf life and transportability - the factors that allow large corporate food producers to make huge profits and put small local farmers out of business. I want my food to taste as good, so I won't be buying cloned animals as long as there is a reasonable choice for me. Just like I'll never buy a shiny but tasteless Chilean tomato bred for thick skin and durability during transport, if I can get a sweet and juicy heirloom from an Illinois farmer.

Aaron Deacon wrote:I do think that the consequences of limited genetic stock are uncertain, and I mistrust attempts at certitude in that regard, though I well understand the consequences may not be adverse at all.

There, I absolutely share your concern. Like I said upthread, perpheral issues aside, I have no worries eating cloned products. But no matter how safe it might be on a micro level, there are, I think, some very serious macro issues that need to be considered.

I also don't mean to suggest that I think this will necessarily be good from an eating standpoint (remains to be seen, I think), but even if I end up hating the result, that strikes me as a market issue rather than a government issue. If it tastes good and I don't think it's causing harm, I'm not going to avoid it just because it's new technology.

Dmnkly wrote:I also don't mean to suggest that I think this will necessarily be good from an eating standpoint (remains to be seen, I think), but even if I end up hating the result, that strikes me as a market issue rather than a government issue.

I agree, which is why I will not personally support anything that contributes to the creation of a viable market for meat from cloned animals. I'll support efforts to boycott stores that carry them, and efforts to prevent such stores from entering my community. I'll support efforts to convince people to buy their meat elsewhere (e.g., from local farmers), and efforts to market food that tastes good as more desirable than food that merely looks pretty on the shelf after 3 weeks in a truck. The more the market grows for this type of commoditized food, the more it shrinks for the type of food I like (food from local farmers). As local farmers disappear, I have a much harder time finding my kind of food, or it becomes prohibitively expensive.

I don't even eat farm-raised animals/marine life most of the time... certainly won't be eating cloned... unless there isn't anything else to eat...

Everybody seems to be saying that the important part in the acceptability is how the animal is raised, what it is fed, what environment it has, which has absolutely nothing to do with its genetic makeup. Why is the fact that it starts out as genetically identical the determining factor as to whether it is acceptable or not? Just because it is cloned doesn't mean it is going to be raised in an unwholesome manner. If two cows are raised in the same way and one is a clone of the other, I submit that they'll be almost identical in every way and whatever differences that do exist will be due to environmental influences and not due to the fact that one was cloned and the other was not.

In fact, cloning could help determine what is the optimal way to raise the animal, because if you start with exactly the same genetic makeup, you know for certain that the only variables are the external factors and not that the genetics had something to do with the outcome.

If my Vosges chocolate bars clone themselves, yes I will be eating them. A lot of them.

Aaron Deacon wrote:I do think that the consequences of limited genetic stock are uncertain, and I mistrust attempts at certitude in that regard, though I well understand the consequences may not be adverse at all.

I'm not certain that non-cloned animals are very diverse genetically, as your statement seems to suggest. In fact, if the genetic make up is good in a particular animal and it is cloned, then genetically the clones are better, every one of them, compared to the offspring of an inbred population.

I see people are having a gut reaction to something because it goes in their mouth. How about if you were betting on a horse race. Would you put more money on a horse that claimed Secretariat as a grandparent or a clone of Secretariat - with both raised on the same farm and having the same trainers (for the race, assume either no jockeys or clones ) ?
As for cloned meat - well, what's your answer to the above? Now put your mouth where your money is.

imsscott makes an excellent point about clones being optimal to compare conditions to raise the animals (though I think knowing how to best raise animals is already well known - it is just less compatible with mass production).

C'mon people. The question is not that simple. The history of cloning has been replete with failure. Supposedly identical beasts have died many early deaths. How identical could they be? Pure arrogance to think we can manufacture life.

No one is even addressing the questions regarding law that I stated upthread earlier, and, despite my own revulsion, quote myself:

If a McDonald's patented bull mounts my old Bessie on some casual encounter, will I forever be in McDonald's debt for the sad offspring?

I'm not a-fearing eating cloned products, we do it everyday -- the cat's out of the bag. I just think we should be more cautious than we have been, and give more respect to the way thing were. Especially those of us who claim to care about such things. The agro-industrial complex has only profit in mind.

The FDA has proven itself incompetent, understaffed, ill-educated, and under insurmountable corporate sway. It takes those on the fringe to wave the flags, even if it is a lonely job.

-ramon

Ramon wrote:The history of cloning has been replete with failure. Supposedly identical beasts have died many early deaths. How identical could they be? Pure arrogance to think we can manufacture life.

I don't see how cloning is manufacturing life - any more than say in vitro fertilization, or holding a cow for mating. Failure rates are high in the early development of any technology. How many seedlings of hybrids make it.

I'm simply pointing out that there seems to be large misconceptions about cloning and that the process per se isn't bad for meat. As an industry, I think the reasons for doing it (cloning) are pursuant to bad practices in the raising and processing. That's something we already live with. I'd rather see that change.

sazerac wrote:I don't see how cloning is manufacturing life - any more than say in vitro fertilization, or holding a cow for mating. Failure rates are high in the early development of any technology. How many seedlings of hybrids make it.

In vitro fertilization and holding bulls for mating are manipulations of reproductive processes that exist in nature. Cloning, on the other hand, is technology used to replace nature. All three processes certainly represent human attempts to control the outcome of a reproductive process, but it's pretty clear to me that there is a difference. We all draw somewhat arbitrary lines on these slippery slopes of technology advancement at the expense of nature. This is where I draw mine.

Ramon wrote:C'mon people. The question is not that simple. The history of cloning has been replete with failure. Supposedly identical beasts have died many early deaths. How identical could they be? Pure arrogance to think we can manufacture life.
-ramon

Following this logic with any endeavor, if there are initial problems it's because we shouldn't be doing it and not the way we are doing it.

Let's not develop artificial hearts because the early ones failed due to it just being wrong to make artifical body parts.

Let's not build airplanes, because the first ones failed and proved that if man was meant to fly he would have wings.

Let's not do stem cell research, because it's wrong and just won't work.

And let's certainly not do cloning because the reason why cloned animals died early was not because of problems with an as yet to be perfected cloning process, but due to the fact that cloning is just wrong and that it is impossible to create an identical genetic copy.

imsscott wrote:

Ramon wrote:C'mon people. The question is not that simple. The history of cloning has been replete with failure. Supposedly identical beasts have died many early deaths. How identical could they be? Pure arrogance to think we can manufacture life.
-ramon

Following this logic with any endeavor, if there are initial problems it's because we shouldn't be doing it and not the way we are doing it.

Let's not develop artificial hearts because the early ones failed due to it just being wrong to make artifical body parts.

Let's not build airplanes, because the first ones failed and proved that if man was meant to fly he would have wings.

Let's not do stem cell research, because it's wrong and just won't work.

And let's certainly not do cloning because the reason why cloned animals died early was not because of problems with an as yet to be perfected cloning process, but due to the fact that cloning is just wrong and that it is impossible to create an identical genetic copy.

This isnt' the logical continuation of arguments against cloning. At the beginning of any technology development, we never know exactly how it will turn out. Therefore, we ought to weigh the potential advantages of the technology against the possible risks. In each of the examples you cite above, it would be fair to say that the potential advantages substantially outweighed the risks that existed during the technology's development. With other technologies (nuclear weaponry, for example), one might reasonably argue that the balance shifts.

As I said, we all draw somewhat arbitrary lines here. To me, the likely advantages of cloned animals used for meat (increased shelf life, portability, and profit for large corporations) fall short compared to what I see as serious risks (limited genetic stock, pain and suffering for malformed animals, monopolization of the food supply, and unavailability of meat that tastes good).

We're not talking about a cure for cancer, or even male pattern baldness. We already know how to create life just fine -- its called sex -- and it's a good thing!

(Not to mention that the evolutionary conjunction of genetic code is vital to the propagation of any species.)

-ramon

Kennyz wrote:In vitro fertilization and holding bulls for mating are manipulations of reproductive processes that exist in nature. Cloning, on the other hand, is technology used to replace nature. All three processes certainly represent human attempts to control the outcome of a reproductive process, but it's pretty clear to me that there is a difference. We all draw somewhat arbitrary lines on these slippery slopes of technology advancement at the expense of nature. This is where I draw mine.

I don't know that cloning is replacing nature. The genetic material for the clone is from a natural source - and the birthing etc. process are unchanged (until vat meat, but that's a different matter entirely). If you contend that in vitro fertilization is but a manipulation of a process that exists in nature and therefore acceptable, then reproductive cloning should not be considered much differently.

Kennyz wrote:As I said, we all draw somewhat arbitrary lines here. To me, the likely advantages of cloned animals used for meat (increased shelf life, portability, and profit for large corporations) fall short compared to what I see as serious risks (limited genetic stock, pain and suffering for malformed animals, monopolization of the food supply, and unavailability of meat that tastes good).

That's true - but the serious risks you list aren't something that cloning has caused or is causing. Perhaps extending.
I'm following this discussion as I dabble in science professionally (though not in cloning) so public perceptions of science is always interesting. It seems to me that 'cloning' is becoming a rallying point for the underinformed public against the bad meat industry practices (which already exist). The unfortunate part is that 'cloning' then gets the bad rap that makes its beneficial applicability in other areas much harder.

So when you say 'No' to cloned meat but 'Yes' to 'factory' meat, then really the disservice is to the science of cloning - not to the meat industry where I think the public ire is intended. Sadly, saying 'Yes' to cloned meat means condoning current and future bad industry practices.
It is for this reason then that I think cloned meat should not be marked (and also as Dmnkly pointed out - the meat per se is no different (given proper application of the technology)). I hope that the general public will then recognize where their dissatisfaction (if/when it manifests) should be directed.

I had though of initiating (long ago) a discussion about perceptions on genetically modified (GM) foods. This is a similar issue to some extent.

Chances are someone on here has already drank some milk from a cloned cow. this was the first real use of cloning. as dairy cows are being pushed to extremes on milk production. it is easy to justify a cloning cows that will produce 50 more lbs of milk a day. (by the way, milk is measured in lbs, until it is bottled for retail) i have absolutely no probs cloning one of my cows if by chance the stars align and i raise a perfect cow with all the genetics i desire. as a matter of fact we have already flushed 4-5 of our cows (as in, harvested eggs for in vitro into a surrogate) that we were particularly happy with.

At some point, the term "cloning" has picked up some seriously negative connotations as implied above. While I am not involved in the manufacture of food, I am sure that those who are would agree with me in saying that is the issue.

Someone will come up with a more friendly term and the issue will gradually go away.

I believe it is a good thing that our species feels some remorse about how we manipulate the world around us for our benefit, but it often strikes me that the way this gets expressed is more emotive than well thought out. Much like fertilizer, cloning and genetic engineering of food stuffs are just tools that can be used well or badly. And they will be used both ways. Discussing whether the processes themselves are inherently good or bad is roughly akin to arguing about whether electrical power generation or the internal combustion engine are good or bad things. It is all about how they are used. On the whole, my guess is that cloning is somewhat worse than electrical power generation, but in 100 years we will view its overall effect as being much more positive than the internal combustion engine. That is from my crystal ball - prediction is given with no guarantee, just like a weather forecast. (Good technology or bad - do we need a poll?)

On the other hand, if one has serious doubts about the ethics or competency of the companies bringing us cloned food that is a perfect reason to have reservations about how cloning is going to be used. That means the real issue is about those companies.

I used to wonder how cloning got such a bad rep until I was looking at something about Eugenics and where that all came from, and it suddenly made perfect sense.

Of course, I will eat cloned food unless it tastes bad, is particularly unhealthy or is somehow inhumane. I do not believe it needs to be any of those things and am prepared to approach it with an open mind.

dicksond wrote: (Good technology or bad - do we need a poll?)

Oh fun! Let's have a poll! I do love a good poll ;>

Bulldog_Shotgun wrote:Chances are someone on here has already drank some milk from a cloned cow. this was the first real use of cloning. as dairy cows are being pushed to extremes on milk production. it is easy to justify a cloning cows that will produce 50 more lbs of milk a day. (by the way, milk is measured in lbs, until it is bottled for retail) i have absolutely no probs cloning one of my cows if by chance the stars align and i raise a perfect cow with all the genetics i desire. as a matter of fact we have already flushed 4-5 of our cows (as in, harvested eggs for in vitro into a surrogate) that we were particularly happy with.

50 lbs/day? That cow would be hamburger. The best cows could give 150 lbs. Do you have an organic herd? Jerseys? Grazing?

I am decidedly neutral when it comes to this subject, but if you are concerned, there is a link to a petition that's been going around.

I apologize if these kinds of posts are inappropriate here.


http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/306139662?z00m=13154060

With very little data to go on, the FDA has decided that milk and meat from cloned animals and their offspring are safe to eat. This means that within a few months, the livestock industry could be shipping these items to your supermarket with no labeling.
Support Labeling for Cloned Milk and Meat

Cloned cows and pigs suffer from numerous health problems. Many are born with deformities and birth defects, and a majority don't live to adulthood. Those that survive often have weakened immune systems. These sickly animals are frequently treated with antibiotics, which may contribute to an increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria. Without labeling, you won't be able to choose whether or not to buy meat from clones.

Act now! Ask your Senator to co-sponsor the Cloned Food Labeling Act (s.414) introduced by Senator Barbara Mikulski.

Hell no, I wouldn't buy or eat it in a million years.

Strange thing is, there's a guy living in my cellar who looks, walks, and talks exactly like me, and he says he's got no problem with it.

Barry Foy wrote:Hell no, I wouldn't buy or eat it in a million years.

Strange thing is, there's a guy living in my cellar who looks, walks, and talks exactly like me, and he says he's got no problem with it.

*cue the Twilight Zone theme*