1
   

F.D.A. Calls Cloned Animals Safe as Food

 
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 10:25 pm
patiodog, when a cloned animals organs can't sustain life, healthy animals impregnated with cloned fetuses abort , and the animals that somehow survive the cloning procedure have zero life expectancy, then I'd say the animal's unhealthy.

It's bad enough what factory farms do to healthy animals! Are you willing to take that risk by ingesting cloned "products"?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 10:27 pm
Unhealth is not always contagious. And I don't dig the idea of folks cloning food animals (though I still can't see how that would be economical, but I've been wrong before, say, in the past minute or two), but just what do you think is in one of these animals that can be transmitted to you?
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 10:44 pm
I sure don't want to find out what diseases people will inherit from cloned animals. So far, the only data available ensures that the poor animal will produce larger steaks! Why can't they clone from a clone? Because cloned cells cannot sustain themselves. The least worry about health, is the cloned animal will have no health benefits for humans whatsoever.

So the only point to cloning is profit.
0 Replies
 
wenchilina
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 10:51 pm
Stradee wrote:
cloned animals organs can't sustain themselves ... have zero life expectancy


Monozygotic twins must be quite the marvel to you. They're even better clones than any scientist could ever dream of creating. They must be some kind of mutants :wink:
0 Replies
 
wenchilina
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 10:52 pm
littlek wrote:
GM food is different.


Why?
0 Replies
 
wenchilina
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 10:57 pm
Stradee wrote:
Why can't they clone from a clone?


A clone can be cloned.
0 Replies
 
colorbook
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 10:59 pm
wenchilina wrote:

I fail to see any cohesive logic in your reasoning.
Genetics 101 for you :wink:
Polychlorinated biphenyls has little to do with the health of a clone.



My statement about the PCBs was only an analogy in regard to human error. Smile
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 11:23 pm
Healthy animals frequently abort their own fetuses, not because of health defects in the fetus but because of immune response to antigens on the fetuses cells. This happens with humans -- that's what the rhesus factor is all about, and it was a major problem here until fairly recently.

As far as "inheriting diseases," the only animal you can inherit a disease from is your mother or father. I still can't imagine what you might be thinking of that would make eating a cloned animal more dangerous than eating the animal it was cloned from.



And to speak on k's behalf -- GM food is different because it has been genetically modified to express a different protein complement: the contents of the food -- or at least some structural aspect of it -- have been changed.
0 Replies
 
wenchilina
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 11:31 pm
patiodog wrote:
And to speak on k's behalf -- GM food is different because it has been genetically modified to express a different protein complement: the contents of the food -- or at least some structural aspect of it -- have been changed.


Indeed I'm aware. I should've specified why would she would take issue with GM foods. My bad for not clarifying.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2003 09:53 am
patiodog

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2233363.stm

http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0924/presentations/Foreman.pdf


Wenchilina

http://health.discovery.com/minisites/dna/glossary/glossary_monozygotic_twins.html?spawn=1
0 Replies
 
wenchilina
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2003 10:05 am


ummm ok and?
A clone made by nuclear transfer is genetically identical to the 'donor', but the microenvironment, i.e. the cell into which the DNA is transferred, is entirely different.

For instance, the mitochondria (which contain only maternal DNA) in the cell are not the same, whereas a monozygotic twin grows in the same environment as its sibling. The same womb, etc. The fingerprints being different shows how much an impact even very slight differences in the environment make during development... the twins are growing at the same time, same place, with the exact genetic material (even the same mitochondria), but even the difference of a few inches, and you see differences.

Even if you used the 'same' womb, it wouldn't be the same, you see. Time passes, and wombs change. A womb now is not the same womb even a month from now.

A clone will be vastly different from its donor, shocking to the uninformed public.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2003 11:20 am
(actually knew two monozygotic triplets (never met the third). don't know if they were the result of fertility treatments or not.)

Quote:
The panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences in response to a request by the US Government.

It said eating food made from cloned animals appeared to be safe but products made from GM animals could pose a risk to human health.

It also said cloned and GM animals raise significant concerns over environmental risks and animal welfare.


Which is exactly what I've been trying to say, though nowhere near so clearly.

And here's the thing with GM fruits and veggies (GM food animals seems incredibly morbid to me -- it's a whole different can of worms): environmental impact is definitely iffy. But so is the environmental impact of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, and the use of both of these products is on the list of problems that GM is meant to address.

Now, it's very nice to be in a privileged enough position in the world that I can choose organic produce, that I can demand that my food be grown with supposedly minimal impact on personal and ecological health. But most of the world is not so lucky. In most of the world, maximal yield per unit of land is crucial, as is increasing the nutritional quality of existing food stocks. Remember, yellow rice is the result of genetic meddling, and this introduction of essential vitamins into the diets of millions upon millions of impoverished Asian families is hard to overstate.

The world's population and distribution of wealth creates a whole set of agricultural problems that require new and novel solutions. The amount of arable land on the planet is shrinking, partly as the result of traditional agricultural practices. According to some estimates, the last couple of years have seen the first occurrence in recorded history of available arable land being incapable of feeding the world's human population at a subsistence level even at maximal yield. Does the thought of grain that monarch butterflies refuse to eat disturb me? Yes, it does. But so does the thought of continuing to bombard crops with pesticides. So does the thought of continuing to depend on industrial fertilizers that eventually render soil useless and that cause massive algal blooms along the world's coastlines.

Organic, untampered-with-food is a great luxury to have, but for most of the world it is a luxury -- most of the world has to take what it can get, and, believe it or not, science often helps these people.

When was the last time you saw somebody with rickets, for instance? There were plenty of valid concerns about the irradiation of dairy products to make active vitamin D, but doing it virtually eliminated rickets in much of the world. Are there better ways to address vitamin D deficiency now? Sure -- but they either weren't known or weren't economically feasible at the time for the people that needed them most.

Do you have any idea how devastating the effects of vitamin deficiencies can be, and how much GM research is geared toward eradicating them among people who can't afford a fancy and varied diet the way Americans and Europeans can? Believe me, I've met a lot of the young people going in to this research, and most of them aren't rubbing their hands together, Monty Burns-like, at the prospect of increasing the misery that American agribusiness can inflict on its slave-animals. There are very real problems that need to be addressed, and much of this research is aimed at addressing them. Yes, 6.5 billion people seems like way too much to me. But I don't want to be the one to decide which 2 billion of them have to grow up malnourished because I'm afraid of science.

It's a complicated planet, we're a complicated species apparently on a path to causing much suffering for ourselves and for the rest of the planet. But we've got to use the tools we've got to address these problems, and so far as I'm concerned, genetic research is one of those tools. Will it be misapplied? Sure, especially in countries that stand to benefit, in real terms, less from the technology. But if they can find a way to make healthier rice grow on less land with less environmental impact, more power to 'em: they're going to help a lot more people than the organic farmers I get my winter squash from.


Anyway, that's how I feel today. Anything to avoid studying.
0 Replies
 
wenchilina
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2003 12:42 pm
Interestingly, we share many, many, many genes and control pathways with everything from fruit flies to snails to dogs, etc.

What we don't share as many with are plants-- way back, they took a different route in evolving (quite obviously). The obvious implication of this is that putting plant genes, and the consequent protein products of those genes, into our bodies absolutely cannot cause harm-- it is impossible, with 4 BILLION years of evolution separating the eating from the eaten...

(I posted this months ago but it seems fitting here)
Every single vegetable is genetically engineered.
Broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage are the same species of plant. Selective breeding is genetic engineering... and that's been done for quite a while... Now, I loathe companies such as Monsanto, who insert genes into plants in order to force farmers to use ONLY their stock-- that is just wrong. However, it isn't bad for you in any way, shape, or form. And most GM foods are modified to make them better-- higher vitamin content, or bug resistance, or resistance to freezing.
It's really a matter of not understanding genetics and molecular biology that gets people up in arms and all wacked out over these things... in other words, ignorance...



Quote:
organic foods


While the term "organic" refers to that USDA definition, in a strictly chemical view, 'organic' refers to chemicals that contain carbon atoms.

The definition is usually narrowed down slightly by saying that organic chemistry is the study of carbon compounds which contain hydrogen or a halogen.

The scientific definition arose in a time of ignorance when it referred to living things, but we know now that there is no difference between chemicals in living things (i.e. they don't contain a special "vital essence"), and non-living things...

Or, alternately, everything is living-- this would mean that everything is organic... hehe...

Btw, where you making reference to the BT toxin gene product with your monach comment? (I'm assuming)
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2003 12:50 pm
Quote:
The definition is usually narrowed down slightly by saying that organic chemistry is the study of carbon compounds which contain hydrogen or a halogen.


Er, nitrogen's rather big, along with sulfur and, to a much lesser extent, phosphorus -- just for the sake of splitting hairs -- and of course biochemistry is far less exclusive than organic, which is rarely done for its own sake any more, anyway.

Quote:
Btw, where you making reference to the BT toxin gene product with your monach comment? (I'm assuming)


I really don't know the specifics -- just a vague recollection that migrating monarchs apparently depended on farmed plants en route and that they didn't take to the GM stuff.
0 Replies
 
Monger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:52 am
Did you know that if you take an ordinary house plant, crossbreed it with a cat, then crossbreed that with a Gila monster and crossbreed that with a cloned cucumber, your new pet would scare the living doo doo out of the Christian Right groups?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:55 am
Monger, I must ask that you remove that post. I am sure you have only good intentions, but should that information fall into the wrong hands...

We'll, we'd always be able to sleep in on Saturday morning.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 05:53 pm
The FDA is in the hip pocket of special interests anyway. I have not considered them a friend/protector to the public in many years. Last month they took away a natural remedy which has been in use for many years and which I have used with great success for about six months. It is my opinion and that of people I know that this was because a natural remedy cannot be patented by the drug companies, so they don't want the public having access to them. The FDA goes along with most everything the drug companies ask for, except in rare cases when they go much much too far.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 06:24 pm
Thumbs up, edgarblythe!
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 12:11 pm
Quote:
It is my opinion and that of people I know that this was because a natural remedy cannot be patented by the drug companies, so they don't want the public having access to them.


That's my general impression. Amazing what you can (and can't) take for simple depression...
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 01:57 pm
Clones.

http://yyyz.net/BGE/images/Strip04_02092000.jpg
http://yyyz.net/BGE/images/Strip04_02092000.jpg
http://yyyz.net/BGE/images/Strip04_02092000.jpg
http://yyyz.net/BGE/images/Strip04_02092000.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 09:01:53