FDA to approve cloned animals "safe to eat", what do you think?

I don't even see the point in this legislation, other than opening a door for human cloning. There's no purpose in cloning a livestock animal exclusively for the purposes of slaughter. Cloning is a very expensive and unreliable process. You're talking about spending thousands of dollars to get statistically worse results than what you'd get for putting a cow and bull in the same pasture.
 
Fellina said:
I don't even see the point in this legislation, other than opening a door for human cloning. There's no purpose in cloning a livestock animal exclusively for the purposes of slaughter. Cloning is a very expensive and unreliable process. You're talking about spending thousands of dollars to get statistically worse results than what you'd get for putting a cow and bull in the same pasture.
Click to expand...
That's partly true. While yes, cloning is very expensive atm, but with time we'll get better on it, and thus reducing the cost of cloning. Computers were very expensive and large, and could only perform the most simple calculations. So one might ask themselves "Why spend thousand of dollars and a whole room in order to have a machine that do the very same thing you can do in your head?". Now wehave computers that can perform calculations no human could dream of calculating in their own life time. If no one would have bothered developing computers, a lot of things in modern society wouldn't exist. And I would probably not be writing this post, either.
 
Dolphin, salami, and provolone sliced thin, on rye, lettuce, lil mustard, hold the mayo...


i'd dig on some bbq bald eagle too...


matter of fact, can i see that menu of endangered species again, because i bet there's alotta bit of deliciousness on there...
 
Isomiau said:
Dolphin, salami, and provolone sliced thin, on rye, lettuce, lil mustard, hold the mayo...


i'd dig on some bbq bald eagle too...


matter of fact, can i see that menu of endangered species again, because i bet there's alotta bit of deliciousness on there...
Click to expand...

I have always wanted to try Panda. As far as I'm concerned, the more adorable an animal is, the more delicious he'll be when dripping with barbesque sauce.
 
Pasquale said:
I have always wanted to try Panda. As far as I'm concerned, the more adorable an animal is, the more delicious he'll be when dripping with barbesque sauce.
Click to expand...

LOL, somehow this is just so true...

Besides, I've always been a panda. Keep calling myself sad/happy panda =/
 
Unicorn Burger. OH HELLZ YES.

Also, if there was a graph, you would see a link between Deliciousnessnes:Number left in the wild.
 
and TWWWWINNNNNSSSSS
 
Uzor said:
Well, the differences are really quite minimal. If you clone an animal, it becomes just that. A clone of the animal. So there's really no difference between them. No mutations etc. unless you want there to be. The only advanced animal with a completely mapped DNA is currently the dog. There's 2 ways of cloning, either by taking a live sample of DNA from an animal, or by making one of your own. But in order to do that you need to have 100% mapped the DNA of an animal.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, every sentence in the above quote is false.

Cloning doesn't work like a photocopier. You start off with the DNA of the thing you want to clone. You use that as the blueprint for the organism to be developed. For reasons unknown, the organism doesn't always follow the process of making cells, which makes organs, which makes... well, you get the picture. If there is a flaw with how the DNA decides to make, say, cell walls, the whole organism is pretty well pooch'd.

The process pioneered by Kary Mullis (which got him a Nobel Prize) is generally used to replicate DNA from a host, and then used as source material for cloning. Therefore, you don't need to have any of the DNA mapped, just a good sample for replication. So even tho we don't have the whole <insert species here> DNA mapped, that doesn't mean you can't clone it.

We all heard about Dolly the Sheep (who was named so b/c the cell cloned was a mammary cell, har har), here is her Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_the_sheep
 
crookedmidget said:
With all due respect, every sentence in the above quote is false.

Cloning doesn't work like a photocopier. You start off with the DNA of the thing you want to clone. You use that as the blueprint for the organism to be developed. For reasons unknown, the organism doesn't always follow the process of making cells, which makes organs, which makes... well, you get the picture. If there is a flaw with how the DNA decides to make, say, cell walls, the whole organism is pretty well pooch'd.

The process pioneered by Kary Mullis (which got him a Nobel Prize) is generally used to replicate DNA from a host, and then used as source material for cloning. Therefore, you don't need to have any of the DNA mapped, just a good sample for replication. So even tho we don't have the whole <insert species here> DNA mapped, that doesn't mean you can't clone it.

We all heard about Dolly the Sheep (who was named so b/c the cell cloned was a mammary cell, har har), here is her Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_the_sheep
Click to expand...

Yes, I know you don't need to map DNA in order to clone. If you read what I said, I said there's 2 ways to clone something, one of which requires the DNA to be mapped.

While yes, during cloning, something can go wrong which causes the animal to get mutations. In all due respect, the same thing can happen "the real" way. It's a risk that's always there, no matter what way something is "created" in.

Normal cloning is done by taking the DNA from another animal, and inserting it in to an egg. The other option is to "create" the DNA yourself and that requires you to have the DNA 100% mapped.

we're still rather new to cloning, which is why "misstakes" in the form of mutation happens more often then it normally do. But as we get better on it, misstakes are more unlikely to happen. And I doubt they'd slaughter an animal that is heavily mutated.

Every sentence you quoted wasn't false, apart from the "Unless you want there to be". But that is also partially true, in that while yes, normal mutations can happen just like irl, it doesn't suddenly make the animal poisonous etc. And as we get better on it, normaly mutations will be less likely to happen, too. It was true, you just seem to have missread it :p
 
They already do tons of stuff to most food anyways. I can't see cloned food being much worse.
 
Uzor said:
Yes, I know you don't need to map DNA in order to clone. If you read what I said, I said there's 2 ways to clone something, one of which requires the DNA to be mapped.

While yes, during cloning, something can go wrong which causes the animal to get mutations. In all due respect, the same thing can happen "the real" way. It's a risk that's always there, no matter what way something is "created" in.

Normal cloning is done by taking the DNA from another animal, and inserting it in to an egg. The other option is to "create" the DNA yourself and that requires you to have the DNA 100% mapped.

we're still rather new to cloning, which is why "misstakes" in the form of mutation happens more often then it normally do. But as we get better on it, misstakes are more unlikely to happen. And I doubt they'd slaughter an animal that is heavily mutated.

Every sentence you quoted wasn't false, apart from the "Unless you want there to be". But that is also partially true, in that while yes, normal mutations can happen just like irl, it doesn't suddenly make the animal poisonous etc. And as we get better on it, normaly mutations will be less likely to happen, too. It was true, you just seem to have missread it :p
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, I think I see your point, and I misunderstood what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification. I must have been in some 'binary mode' when I was reading your initial post. ;)
 
Tyrath said:
They already do tons of stuff to most food anyways. I can't see cloned food being much worse.
Click to expand...

I think cloned animals will make food more healthy.

Hear me out now... Think about all the growth hormones and shit that goes in to an animal so it can be fattened up to produce more meat per unit. They do that because unit's are limited and take time to concieve, then raise.

They use 6 different growth hormons in beef. These six hormones include three which are naturally occurring—Oestradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone—and three which are synthetic—Zeranol, Trenbolone, and Melengestrol.

It has been questioned whether hormone residues in the meat of "growth enhanced" animals and can disrupt human hormone balance, causing developmental problems, interfering with the reproductive system, and even leading to the development of breast, prostate or colon cancer. I personally think it's also why a large portion of girls wear a D-Cup @ age 12. Puberty comes earlier and earlier these days.

My point is, when you can make livestock at will and not wait on animals to breed, it makes it less crucial to put as much wieght as possible on each animal. It also opens up a broader path to altering animals on the genetic level to possibly enlarge the parts we use the most without chemicals.

Now personally, I don't give a fuck what they do. We're all gonna die one day and no amount of wheat germ or boca burgers is going to change that. I don't care what is in my beef as long as it tastes good and is cooked medium rare. I could go through the whole speech about how poultry, pork, or fish is also just as bad for you as beef, but you all should get the idea.

If you want safe food, grow it yourself. Indoors. If you're religious, remember, animals don't have souls, so it doesn't matter if we clone them.
 
I don't really care, personally. Though, the genetic problems you guys brought up gave me a *really* good idea for my book!

On topic: Meat is meat, let the 2.0 flavor flllooowww.
 
Trippyhippy said:
I think cloned animals will make food more healthy.

Hear me out now... Think about all the growth hormones and shit that goes in to an animal so it can be fattened up to produce more meat per unit. They do that because unit's are limited and take time to concieve, then raise.

They use 6 different growth hormons in beef. These six hormones include three which are naturally occurring—Oestradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone—and three which are synthetic—Zeranol, Trenbolone, and Melengestrol.

It has been questioned whether hormone residues in the meat of "growth enhanced" animals and can disrupt human hormone balance, causing developmental problems, interfering with the reproductive system, and even leading to the development of breast, prostate or colon cancer. I personally think it's also why a large portion of girls wear a D-Cup @ age 12. Puberty comes earlier and earlier these days.

My point is, when you can make livestock at will and not wait on animals to breed, it makes it less crucial to put as much wieght as possible on each animal. It also opens up a broader path to altering animals on the genetic level to possibly enlarge the parts we use the most without chemicals.

Now personally, I don't give a fuck what they do. We're all gonna die one day and no amount of wheat germ or boca burgers is going to change that. I don't care what is in my beef as long as it tastes good and is cooked medium rare. I could go through the whole speech about how poultry, pork, or fish is also just as bad for you as beef, but you all should get the idea.

If you want safe food, grow it yourself. Indoors. If you're religious, remember, animals don't have souls, so it doesn't matter if we clone them.
Click to expand...


Dare I say, I agree with you for once O.o
 
. . . except for the fact that at this point in time there's no way to "speed up" the reproductive process, cloning or no. The cloned animal has to go through gestation and maturity just like any normal animal would.

Don't get me wrong, if they had some way to crank out cloned animals on a conveyor belt I'd eat it. I'd even like to eat some exotic/extinct cloned animals. Dodo confit anyone?

I'm just skeptical because this whole thing is WAY, WAY premature at best. And because it's Uncle Sam we're talking about, it makes me think there's some other agenda besides "a chicken in every pot".
 
Fellina said:
. . . except for the fact that at this point in time there's no way to "speed up" the reproductive process, cloning or no. The cloned animal has to go through gestation and maturity just like any normal animal would.

Don't get me wrong, if they had some way to crank out cloned animals on a conveyor belt I'd eat it. I'd even like to eat some exotic/extinct cloned animals. Dodo confit anyone?

I'm just skeptical because this whole thing is WAY, WAY premature at best. And because it's Uncle Sam we're talking about, it makes me think there's some other agenda besides "a chicken in every pot".
Click to expand...

Yes, but we're not speaking from today's point of view. We're speaking about the future. I don't think any company would be stupid enough to spend 100k bucks on cloning a cow and slauther it and sell it in a food store.
 
First off, LMAO @ the CTV links. Go go Canadian programing.

I'm more or less against this cloning idea. I think it's a great 'idea' to be able to clone and regulate what could be in the clone, but in a way it's just too much and just disgusting. Who knows, maybe we could introduce this world with some new clone disease? Mad cow version two {Do you need it?}.

As economically rewarding cloning would produce in the future, I still feel in some way that it's reward won't stack up to it's promise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top