PDA

View Full Version : Cloned Animal Products?



??????
19th January 2008, 2:09 PM
Recently, the US's FDA has approved the sale of cloned meat, and milk from cloned cows, and goats. Some information on this subject can be found here. (http://www.kspr.com/news/local/13877417.html)

Do you approve of this? I'll post my thoughts at a later time.

MistyLover
19th January 2008, 2:20 PM
Unless the cloned animal products have a risk of spreading an illness to humans, then I don't see the problem of using them. But to be honest, I'd feel much safer if I bought original meat.

Death dealer
19th January 2008, 3:10 PM
The only argument I have personally seen so far against animal cloning for meat (as well as fusing animal cells with human ones for that matter) is the "ewww factor". This is a fallacious appeal to emotion. Hopefully this thread shall bring up some better ones to get people actually thinking.

Conquistador
19th January 2008, 4:48 PM
Hm, did they use the Emerald glitch?


I pretty much have the same stance as MistyLover (good Lord! that isn't possible!). There don't appear to be any health risks by eating cloned meat and this meat is no difference to this meat/milk than to that of the original animal. However, I'd likewise prefer the "natural" product, just for the reassurance factor.

KetchupO
19th January 2008, 6:22 PM
yep. As others have said, unless there's harm in consuming said product, I don't think there's a problem. But I will still prefer the natural product :)

MistyLover
19th January 2008, 10:00 PM
Hm, did they use the Emerald glitch?


I pretty much have the same stance as MistyLover (good Lord! that isn't possible!). There don't appear to be any health risks by eating cloned meat and this meat is no difference to this meat/milk than to that of the original animal. However, I'd likewise prefer the "natural" product, just for the reassurance factor.

Shall I call Guiness World Records?

Also, I don't think that the cloned products would last long before an undoubtless illness shall occur.

Ethan
19th January 2008, 10:17 PM
Meh, I'm not so sure. When humans try to clone stuff it usually gets messed up in some way or another. I mean just look at how many times it took to get Dolly the sheep and even then she only lived half as long as a normal one. In theory I have no qaurrel with theraputic cloning but its such a hazy area in genetics it should still be treated with some suspicion.

Death dealer
19th January 2008, 11:08 PM
Meh, I'm not so sure. When humans try to clone stuff it usually gets messed up in some way or another. I mean just look at how many times it took to get Dolly the sheep and even then she only lived half as long as a normal one. In theory I have no qaurrel with theraputic cloning but its such a hazy area in genetics it should still be treated with some suspicion.

From a vegetarian perspective, if you are creating an animal for the sole purpose of killing it against it's will for food, how can you stay there and complain that it dosn't live as long as a non-cloned animal?
Aside from that, you could argue that food made from it was "impure" (undefined usually..) or, much better, harmful to humans. However, this will probably not be an issue in a few years/decades etc. time as scientists discover how to clone animals more successfully.

The_Panda
20th January 2008, 12:44 AM
Sometimes humans cloning things can be absolutely excellent. For example; tomatoes have been cloned to resist frost, and this has been a huge boost to the industry. I see little problem with this unless it directly harms humans or the environment. Basically what everybody else has said. :P

Conquistador
20th January 2008, 6:49 AM
Lol, not much of a debate when everyone agrees with one another xP.


Shall I call Guiness World Records?


I say you'd better, lol.

chamo-chan
20th January 2008, 6:58 AM
Hmmmmm...I'm not sure.....but as long as nothing goes wrong *coughmutationscough* everything should be fine..

Comis Patronus
20th January 2008, 6:59 AM
No surprise to me-I've known this for a while now (ever since the cloning research paper) and it still has to pass the FDA expectations anyway so it's alright.

~@};-

PsiUmbreon
20th January 2008, 10:06 AM
Why would eating a clone be unhealthy in any way? A cloned cow is just an exact copy of another cow that is perfectly healthy, meaning that if the cow being cloned was perfectly healthy, then the clone would also be perfectly healthy. A cow is a cow.

MistyLover
20th January 2008, 10:10 AM
Why would eating a clone be unhealthy in any way? A cloned cow is just an exact copy of another cow that is perfectly healthy, meaning that if the cow being cloned was perfectly healthy, then the clone would also be perfectly healthy. A cow is a cow.

Cloning is bad! Don't you remember what the clone Pikachu did to the real Pikachu?! DON'T YOU?! I am 100% sure that there's going to be a cow fight. It's undeniable. Miltank VS Miltank

Seriously, though, was the mad cow disease due to a cloning problem?

PsiUmbreon
20th January 2008, 10:13 AM
Cloning is bad! Don't you remember what the clone Pikachu did to the real Pikachu?! DON'T YOU?! I am 100% sure that there's going to be a cow fight. It's undeniable. Miltank VS Miltank

Seriously, though, was the mad cow disease due to a cloning problem?

Uh, no, Mad Cow disease has been around way before people discovered cloning.

If people clone perfectly healthy cows, the clones will be perfectly healthy too.

shiny gardevior
20th January 2008, 12:21 PM
ugh.i woudnt eat a cloned cow....too....atificial...

Canis-Rufus
20th January 2008, 1:05 PM
I would hesitate to take a bite (much like the first time I tried kangaroo) but if it is meat and it is edible, I am gonna eat it.

Ridley-X4
21st January 2008, 4:49 PM
I don't care if it's from Mars. It's not as if these animals have five heads.

Those who believe that it'd turn out bad have obviously been kicking reason out the door and watching too many sci-fi movies. Grow up, and bloom into reality.

PhQnix
21st January 2008, 5:52 PM
Really the idea of cloning within the thread is too vague to initiate discussion one way or the other. If I remember my biology class well enough there are at least two styles of cloning. One involves removing the nucleus from a stem cell and implanting it into an 'empty' cell (I.e. a cell without a nucleus.) This cell is then implanted into the womb of another cow and the calf is born naturally. Because of the nature of stem cells this can be done several times producing clones. The other 'style' of cloning is your traditional sci-fi fare, a cell is removed from an adult animal and this forms the basis for a new animal.

That may be completely wrong and is definitely 'dumbed-down.' The two types of cloning are completely different and therefore are judged separately. Therefore I must ask, what type of cloning are we talking about?

Correct me if I am wrong by the way...

Ridley-X4
21st January 2008, 5:59 PM
The second one you mentioned is definetly sci-fi fare and may not appear for several decades.

The first one is already being used. Just look at Dolly and CopyCat.

mrdurp4
21st January 2008, 6:08 PM
Uh, no, Mad Cow disease has been around way before people discovered cloning.

If people clone perfectly healthy cows, the clones will be perfectly healthy too.

all they have to do is make damn shure the cow is healthy

MistyLover
21st January 2008, 6:11 PM
all they have to do is make damn shure the cow is healthy

Make damn what? What does "shure" mean? It triggers a memory, though, WHERE have I heard a word like that before.

And it's not as easy as it looks. If one contaminated cow somehow gets cloned, disaster will strike.

Dr Elite
21st January 2008, 6:17 PM
does it really make any difference?

Death dealer
21st January 2008, 10:40 PM
And it's not as easy as it looks. If one contaminated cow somehow gets cloned, disaster will strike.

What do you mean by "contaminated"? If the cow has a deadly virus, it will spread regardless of whether the animal is a clone or not.

??????
22nd January 2008, 1:38 AM
Well, I would rather eat original meat, as most of you all would, but not for the same reason.

Take a look at Dolly. This sheep died, and at the half the age of a regular sheep, due to its nature of a clone. If we have sheep dying at young ages because of unknown complcations, why should we eat cows that may have these same problems?

[OriginalNickname]
22nd January 2008, 5:12 PM
a few easy facts:
- Dolly the sheep was a long time ago, cloning is not at the same level it was then.
- Cloning (and GE) let you take the best cows and make more. So you get more high-quality meat
- Cloning can lead to easy infections. But unless you just clone a very small number of animals that doesn't matter much.

Besides, can it really be as bad as you local fast-food outlet.

??????
24th January 2008, 10:26 PM
Cloning can lead to easy infections. But unless you just clone a very small number of animals that doesn't matter much.
Beef cloning will probably not be small in number.


Besides, can it really be as bad as you local fast-food outlet.
I am sure McDonalds is cloning their Big Macs right now.

Rusty
25th January 2008, 1:55 AM
The clone is an -exact- replica of the cloned cow, as long as it's raised properly it will be fine.

And if you saw two pieces of meat, one cloned and one original, you probably couldn't tell the difference by the taste or look of it.

cosmicwind
30th January 2008, 4:49 AM
I don't have a problem with it. As long as the cow doesn't have any genetic defects/diseases (unlikely since the FDA would be watching) there would be no difference between regular and cloned meat. Even if they started tinkering (like they have with genetic engineering), I doubt there would be a problem. These scientists on a whole would be eating these animals/plants too after all.

This could be a boon for world hunger, able to clone animals to feed the starving. But my my only reservation was that last I checked we are rather strapped for farmland globally (top reason for rainforest destruction). So if we clone cows, where are we going to put them? They have to be raised before killed.

Clash
30th January 2008, 8:39 AM
I'd prefer original meat, personally. Also, in the future maybe add a source to your initial post?

Komedic Konservationist
16th February 2008, 5:58 PM
Artificially created, genetically engineered, (or Replicant, if, like me, you prefer to use science fiction terms when reffering to real life stuff that reflects stuff found in science fiction) organisms, can be, or soon will be (I'm not 100% sure if that technology's been invented yet, but if it hasn't, its well within our grasp) specially engineered to have genetic diseases taken out of them, and immunity to dangerous contagious diseases built into them. I'm not only talking diseases that are detrimental to the animal, but also those that are carried by the animal but do not harm it and are only dangerous to humans, like Salmonella.
So, if anything, eating artificial cow may actually be healither than eating real cow.

RedJirachi
9th March 2008, 1:43 AM
How long clones last is an important part of it

Darkmaster Rannon
9th March 2008, 3:10 AM
More meat is good, because it means we can feed the hungry kids in poorer countries e.g. the ghetto!

GentleArtillery
9th March 2008, 7:30 PM
More meat is good, because it means we can feed the hungry kids in poorer countries e.g. the ghetto!

Why can't we give them the soy we're currently feeding our meat cows?

But anyway, I agree with most of you; unless there's some health disadvantages with it, why not? But I'd prefer if they killed one healthy cow and cloned the meat. But that's probably not possible. Though a Dutch professor is researching on how to plant beef. Or something.