Easy way to take *Action* re: Meat & Milk from Cloned Animals

[nosmokes]

while the FDA is trying to fast-track this through w/o anything like thorough research, depending almost entirely on the research done by the companies that own the cloning process and stand to make loads of money(a process that has served the public so well before) there's still time to let them know how you feel about this. at the link below is a letter you can sign and send, or rewrite& edit first. thanks

find the letter *HERE*

[hashibabba]

1. Thanks for the link. I totally agree with you. There has not been

anywhere near enough research done on this. Bears aren't the only endangered species.

[mike_c]

2. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you on this one....

We have eaten cloned plants since the dawn of agriculture, with no ill effects. It's only an accident of evolution that makes clonal propogation more difficult for animals than plants, but MANY still do it parthegenetically. There is absolutely no reason to think that meat from cloned animals would be any different from that of uncloned animals-- experience with natual clonal reproduction would suggest that if nothing else.

There ARE reasons to question the ethics of clonal reproduction under some circumstances, but food quality certainly isn't one of them, IMO.

[nosmokes]

4. if nothing else the quality of life for a cloned animal is likely to be less than

that of a natural offspring. the rates of birth defects, early deaths and congrenital defects are much higher in the clones. i guess i don't worry about the health implications so much as i am vehemently opposed to the policy of looking upon an animal as a machine and treating it as such. that's how we got into this whole mess of industrial agriculture in the first place, by leaving out the key factor that we're dealing with a living breathing organic sysyem, and it works best when we work with it, by understanding it, not by trying to master it and change it.

[mike_c]

6. that's why I said there ARE ethical issues involved...

...just not food quality issues that I'm aware of.

[nosmokes]

7. even if theanimal is prone to defects?

sorry mike, din't mean to gloss over what you said. but i don't see how an animal more prone to birth defects anat wouldn't produce a lower quality meat, and who knows how it might affect milk? you're probably right, but i'd like someone other than the folks that are poised to make millions off of the process to tell me it's safe. just a quirk of mine.;)

[mike_c]

8. oh sure, there are birth defects that could conceivably affect...

...things like weight gain, survival until market, and so on (remember, there are multiple levels to have this discussion on, and this one is about MEAT, not husbandry and ethics). But if those sorts of defects were anything but rare they'd undermine the return on the cost of clonal reproduction anyway, so clonal lines that routinely exhibit them would not be economically viable.

To be honest, as a biologist my primary concern is about reduction in genetic diversity. I don't see that being a big issue in meat production for a couple of reasons, or at least not in the short term. Farmers who use clonal reproduction will undoubtedly choose high gain lines with exceptional health anyway-- I mean, why else clone them? The advantage of this can always be undercut by producers willing to take their chances with sexual reproduction at lower cost, and everyone who can keeps a close eye one herd genetics anyway. Clonal reproduction is never going to altogether replace running a bull or a ram in with the herd.

Truly, we've cloned plants for millenia because we like the tastes, textures, disease resistance, etc of varieties that appear through chance recombination of gametes every now and then. Why not do the same with animals bred specifically for food?

[nosmokes]

9. i'm thinking there's more cloning done for milk than meat?

and you don't see any health dangers at all in milk from clones?

[mike_c]

10. not a priori, no....

Again, the food quality issues are the same for milk as they would be for meat. No one would clone cows just for the hell of it. If a cow is an exceptional milk producer and her genes can be preserved, why not? Remember, cloning her doesn't create anything new-- it just makes a copy (if it's successful-- another issue entirely, of course).

Among animals who clone naturally, the usual reason is that it allows them to quickly make lots of copies of successful genomes. If we already drink the milk Bessie produces because it's wholesome, and if Bessie is a blockbuster producer who fills tanker trucks, why not copy Bessie's genome?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. I don't.

Do you?

[warrens]

5. It's just another method of reproduction

And frankly, I doubt it will be significant in the market if only because of the yuck factor.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Meh.

I don't care if it's cloned.

[Rosemary2205]

11. I don't see the problem

it's bound to produce better, cheaper, more disease resistant stock and it's genetically identical to the "natural" as in artificially inseminated animals we already eat.

Short of having a moral problem with the way animals are treated in commercial food production I don't see a SPECIFIC problem with cloning animals as far as impacting human health.