Attack of the Clone Burgers

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

The FDA has recently approved the sale of meat from cloned animals. Would you eat it?

Yes, cloned meat is the same as the other stuff. Get over it.
13
46%
No, the idea of cloned meat is just plain icky.
5
18%
I don't eat meat, so I don't care.
0
No votes
I don't eat meat, but I still think this is a sick idea.
1
4%
I approve of the idea, but I think all cloned food products should be so labeled so that consumers can choose wisely.
9
32%
 
Total votes: 28

msnflyer
Forum Addict
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 9:22 am
Contact:

Postby msnflyer » Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:53 am

The real reason for cloned beef is that the meatpackers want to develop an animal that is the same size as all the others in order to use automated meat cutting. This will cut both their labor and worker comp costs. Breeders have been trying to achieve the same end with limited success. It all comes down to the economics of getting the beef off the hoof and onto your table. When (or if) cloned beef is introduced it probably won't be cheaper than conventional beef but the profits for the meatpackers will be much higher.

emmy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:58 am
Contact:

Postby emmy » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:13 pm

msnflyer wrote:The real reason for cloned beef is that the meatpackers want to develop an animal that is the same size as all the others in order to use automated meat cutting. This will cut both their labor and worker comp costs. Breeders have been trying to achieve the same end with limited success. It all comes down to the economics of getting the beef off the hoof and onto your table. When (or if) cloned beef is introduced it probably won't be cheaper than conventional beef but the profits for the meatpackers will be much higher.


Now where did you get THAT from?? Can you even imagine how long it would be before ALL animals in the slaughterhouse are the same size? The Prof is right, cloning is too expensive for you to eat the actual cloned animal. The reason behind it is to duplicate the genes of a superior animal with more precision than is currently done, which is currently done by tracking of the offspring he already has, which of course takes quite a while, as they have to grow up first, and there has to be a lot of them before his reliability of passing down those genes is determined. And re the safeness of your milk supply, you're not drinking California milk, you're drinking Wisconsin milk which is coming from the farms near to you. Also, there are very few "corporate" farms as you know them in Wisconsin. Even most, I'd be willing to guess ALL, of the "big" farms you may know of are still owned by families. I can't think of any farms in the state owned by Monsanto, or whoever it is you think of as big "Agribusiness". I'm sure one of you forons is going to Google and prove me wrong, but when you do, find out how many there are compared to how many farms total in this state.

Ducatista
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4505
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:31 pm
Location: 53703

Postby Ducatista » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:37 pm

Velveeta wrote:The FDA will not even comprehensively test our meat for Mad Cow Disease, so can we trust them on this?

Whether it's harmful to my body or not, I will not be consuming cloned animals if I can help it.

Speaking of Mad Cow... I heard a bit on NPR this week about cloned cows that were engineered for immunity to BSE. Results so far suggest success, though researchers won't know for sure until later in the year if the cows are really immune. If I heard right, one of the researchers said he wouldn't pay the extra cost for meat from one of his engineered cows, because the risk of Kreutzfeld-Jacob is so low.

There are tons of stories about it online; here's AP's on CNN.com.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Postby TAsunder » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:39 pm

emmy wrote:The reason behind it is to duplicate the genes of a superior animal with more precision than is currently done, which is currently done by tracking of the offspring he already has, which of course takes quite a while, as they have to grow up first, and there has to be a lot of them before his reliability of passing down those genes is determined.


Just so I'm clear here, you are suggesting that the above still process be done for a period, and then we take the "best of the best" from that process and repeatedly clone it, thereby eliminating or reducing the need to constantly monitor data and release quarterly USDA (and other agency) survey results and all that from multiple agencies. Is that it?

Darthcrank
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:26 pm
Location: bus stop on Gorham

Postby Darthcrank » Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:19 am

jammybastard wrote:what disgusts me isn't cloned meat, but the fact that fundies don't object to it like they do cloning that can actually HELP people!
Fuckin A!


I think fundies find farming people slightly more disturbing than farming animals. We aren't the other white meat *yet*.

emmy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:58 am
Contact:

Postby emmy » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:00 am

TAsunder wrote:
emmy wrote:The reason behind it is to duplicate the genes of a superior animal with more precision than is currently done, which is currently done by tracking of the offspring he already has, which of course takes quite a while, as they have to grow up first, and there has to be a lot of them before his reliability of passing down those genes is determined.


Just so I'm clear here, you are suggesting that the above still process be done for a period, and then we take the "best of the best" from that process and repeatedly clone it, thereby eliminating or reducing the need to constantly monitor data and release quarterly USDA (and other agency) survey results and all that from multiple agencies. Is that it?


Well, THAT'S as clear as mud, so I have no idea if you're "clear" or not. Let me address what I THINK you're saying. I think what you're asking me is if tracking sire's reliability should eventually be stopped, to be taken over by cloning. No. Nor do I think that will ever happen. At least not in our lifetime, nor our kids' lifetime. Cloning is currently too expensive, and WAAAAY too new, and keeping sire data has been going on since the 50's. Embryo transfer and sexed semen are still in their infancy, so I don't think you're going to see cloned beef at the butcher's any time soon.

msnflyer
Forum Addict
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 9:22 am
Contact:

Postby msnflyer » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 am

Cloned beef won't be on your dinner table in five years but it may be on your children's menus.

The speed at which the uniform beef bovine is produced is only limited by how much the meat packers want to invest in the project. I think it will happen sooner than you expect.

Farmers and consumers have little say in agriculture. The control is in the hands of the processors who buy the raw commodity at the lowest possible price, process it into a marketable piece, and sell it to wholesalers a the highest possible price. They have a huge interest in decreasing their costs and one way of doing this is mechanical meat processing. Having uniformly sized animals will facilitate this processing.

Besides, you only have to clone the first generation. Subsequent generations will retain the characteristics of the cloned parent animals.

If we were paying the true cost of beef production, no fast food restaurant would be able to offer a burger for a buck unless it was three quarters sawdust.

Now, do you want to talk about mechanically separated meat that's already being used??

Scooterboy
Senior Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:35 pm

Postby Scooterboy » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:39 pm

I thought meat and milk were ok here until I moved to Ireland for a spell. Grass fed is the norm there. BSE/bovine growth hormones are illegal. When I was there, a farmer was put in prison after being convicted of giving hormone treatments to his dairy cows. Ungelded bulls are put in the field with the cows, which can get noisy at times, but that's how new calves are made. Meat products are not fed to cattle. Your local butcher knows the farmers who raise the meat. The meat is sweet. The milk is fresh and tastes like milk tasted when I was a kid, when we had it delivered in the morning from the local dairy.

Bainne Ã?r! Now, I will only buy organic milk, from grass fed cows if I can get it.

I miss my butcher.

msnflyer
Forum Addict
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 9:22 am
Contact:

Postby msnflyer » Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:44 am

When I was in Ireland two years ago, all beef in the supermarket had tags saying the meet was tracked by DNA. You could go on-line and get the family history of the bovine you're consuming. Part of this tracking is a result of the mad cow scare in Great Britain.

emmy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:58 am
Contact:

Postby emmy » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:39 pm

Scooterboy wrote:I thought meat and milk were ok here until I moved to Ireland for a spell. Grass fed is the norm there. BSE/bovine growth hormones are illegal. When I was there, a farmer was put in prison after being convicted of giving hormone treatments to his dairy cows. Ungelded bulls are put in the field with the cows, which can get noisy at times, but that's how new calves are made. Meat products are not fed to cattle. Your local butcher knows the farmers who raise the meat. The meat is sweet. The milk is fresh and tastes like milk tasted when I was a kid, when we had it delivered in the morning from the local dairy.

Bainne Ã?r! Now, I will only buy organic milk, from grass fed cows if I can get it.

I miss my butcher.


"Ungelded bulls"??? Where the hell did you get THAT term from??? ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!! ANY bull is "ungelded" if he HAS been castrated, he's a "steer".
And turning a bull into a field of cows is very dangerous, and does nothing at all for genetic improvement. And "meat products" i.e. bone meal, isn't fed to cattle anymore either.

supereightsnate
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 2:38 pm
Contact:

Postby supereightsnate » Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:11 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
Velveeta wrote:Are we feeding the hungry now, with the higher yield technologies brought about by GMO? The last I checked, people were still starving in the world.
There's a helluva lot fewer of'em in the places that have embraced GM crops, though, and there'd be a lot fewer still if the alarmists weren't fomenting unnecessary fear and panic in the leaders of countries where they'd do even more good.


GMO crops have never been intended to solve world hunger. The whole idea has been to convert various subsistance crop farms into more market friendly cash crop producing ones that can kick back a percentage of their proceeds to whatever big agribusiness owns the patent(monsanto, conagra, etc...).

TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8533
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East
Contact:

Postby TheBookPolice » Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:18 pm

supereightsnate wrote:GMO crops have never been intended to solve world hunger. The whole idea has been to convert various subsistance crop farms into more market friendly cash crop producing ones that can kick back a percentage of their proceeds to whatever big agribusiness owns the patent(monsanto, conagra, etc...).


Image

Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaa....

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9647
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:35 pm

supereightsnate wrote: GMO crops have never been intended to solve world hunger.
Tell it to Norman Borlaug.

Then tell it to the millions who've starved due to the misplaced righteousness of those who will never themselves know what it means to face real hunger.

supereightsnate
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 2:38 pm
Contact:

Postby supereightsnate » Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:58 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
supereightsnate wrote: GMO crops have never been intended to solve world hunger.
Tell it to Norman Borlaug.

Then tell it to the millions who've starved due to the misplaced righteousness of those who will never themselves know what it means to face real hunger.


oh, sure, Norm's the granddaddy of the "western world thinking they know what's best for everyone" camp. Except, Norm and his buds never considered that single cash crop farms planted with GMO seeds that are basically sterile might not be the most sustainable for small scale subsistance farmers. What good is GMO corn, for instance, if you can't save any of last year's crop to replant the seed cause the seeds are sterile? Can you afford to pay Monsanto year after year? And what happens when you're using non-GMO seed but somehow GMO crops sprout up on your land and ConAgra sues you for patent infringement? That can't help. Folks like Norm do have good intentions, but do you really think Monsanto and friends have anything in mind besides the bottom line?

Oh, and what happens when your sweet Round Up Ready corn you planted in Mexico isn't working anymore cause some Round Up superbug is eating all your crops? Most likely, your "supercrop" has taken over and eliminated 1000 years of natural genetic diversity and you're screwed finding some sort of resistance.

In a market driven factory farm evironment like the USA, GMO makes a lot of sense(to some), but arguing a one-size-fits-all approach to world agriculture might not be a good idea.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9647
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:21 am

Nate -

Your generalizations/descriptions of Dr. Borlaug suggest to me that you are unfamiliar with his actual accomplishments ("one-size-fits-all approach to world agriculture" is about as far off the mark as you could be in describing his work) and your predilection to lump him in with the business end of agribusiness is just plain goofy considering his career choices (not to mention that he agrees with some of your points about the economics of farming - but instead of just slamming agribusiness, he actually proposes solutions.)

Let's recap: You said that "GMO crops have never been intended to solve world hunger" and I countered by pointing out that Dr. Borlaug - who was a granddaddy in their devolpment, is a well respected scientist in the field and has a long history of applying his knowledge and experiences in ways which have provided millions of people with food - believes exactly the opposite. Your response was just a standard, anti-corporate rant with a lot of fearmongering and "what if" theorizing, but little actual substance (What? Not even a single link to an article describing the hell wrought by the RoundUp superbug!) Sure, you grudgingly admit that Borlaug has "good intentions." Well, I'm sorry, but Borlaug has more than good intentions - he has a long history of - and let's be very clear here - helping starving people eat. And what, pray tell, have the naysayers done to alleviate world hunger? Does badmouthing Mansanto really help put food in anyone's mouth or is that just what overfed Americans with a gazillion dietary choices do to make them feel better about how priveleged they are?


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests