<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Consumers demand market rejection of food from cloned animals]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by MAD MAC http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/ Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:15:03 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/1 Yeah, Americans are dying in droves.....

.... from unsafe foods. Hundreds of thousands of people have already died last year because the FDA has failed in its charter to ensure relative safety of the US food supply................

Who are the absolute idiots who write this drivel?

Victory in Pattani

]]> Yeah, Americans are dying in droves.....

.... from unsafe foods. Hundreds of thousands of people have already died last year because the FDA has failed in its charter to ensure relative safety of the US food supply................

Who are the absolute idiots who write this drivel?

Victory in Pattani

]]> Comment #2 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/ Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:06:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/2 ethical confusions

From the way this is presented, the opposition of American consumers to meat and other food products from cloned animals is exclusively based on concerns about the healthfulness of those products.  Actually, I tend to agree with the FDA, assuming I understand the cloning process well enough to have an opinion: there seems to be no reason to suspect that those products should be less healthful than products from normally-reproducing animals.  Still, the concern is not altogether unreasonable.

On the other hand, it is not especially enlightened, with regard to ethics.  The Europeans seem much more explicitly to be paying attention to reports of cruelty, of one kind or another, to the animals involved in the cloning process.

That is a good bit better.  But then, it seems odd to complain about the cruelty suffered by one small population of farm animals, and to uncomplaining about the cruelty suffered by the great majority of farm animals.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> ethical confusions

From the way this is presented, the opposition of American consumers to meat and other food products from cloned animals is exclusively based on concerns about the healthfulness of those products.  Actually, I tend to agree with the FDA, assuming I understand the cloning process well enough to have an opinion: there seems to be no reason to suspect that those products should be less healthful than products from normally-reproducing animals.  Still, the concern is not altogether unreasonable.

On the other hand, it is not especially enlightened, with regard to ethics.  The Europeans seem much more explicitly to be paying attention to reports of cruelty, of one kind or another, to the animals involved in the cloning process.

That is a good bit better.  But then, it seems odd to complain about the cruelty suffered by one small population of farm animals, and to uncomplaining about the cruelty suffered by the great majority of farm animals.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> Comment #3 by MAD MAC http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/ Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:15:20 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/3 The cloning, Saxib, is not an ethical issue.

As you point out, either you eat meat or you don't. Now, I do not approve of raising animals in constraints, so that they spend their entire lives in a cage and are then killed. Animals should be raised in fields, where they can graze and do whatever the hell it is that animals like to do - before I eat them.

Victory in Pattani

]]> The cloning, Saxib, is not an ethical issue.

As you point out, either you eat meat or you don't. Now, I do not approve of raising animals in constraints, so that they spend their entire lives in a cage and are then killed. Animals should be raised in fields, where they can graze and do whatever the hell it is that animals like to do - before I eat them.

Victory in Pattani

]]> Comment #4 by moyesii http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/ Sat, 06 Sep 2008 05:14:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/4 The real issue is food from offspring of clones

I think the real issue is food from the offspring of clones, and for the most part, the food industry has not taken any sort of meaningful stand on that issue. For producers, the real value of clones lies in reproducing top breeders and using the clones to breed for specific traits, such as bigger and more productive offspring. Therefore, the companies that have stated that they won't use food from cloned animals are really making empty promises since it's primarily the food from the offspring of these clones that they intend to market.

Here's a quote from Trans Ova Genetics President David Faber:
After making a $10,000 to $20,000 investment on one of these animals, it doesn't make economic sense to put them into the food supply, Faber said. "The farmers and producers who use this technology are mainly interested in capturing genetic value to produce higher quality animals," he said.

Therefore, I don't think the companies that have pledged not to sell food from clones deserve praise for trying to spin a purely economic decision on cloning as a socially responsible one, since it's merely not profitable for them at this point to be using clones as meat animals. If they said that they would not use food from cloned animals or their offspring anytime now or in the future, that would be a real victory for consumers, but they won't ever say that.

Here is Smithfield Foods' statement from their website:
Smithfield Foods, Inc. (NYSE:SFD) reiterated earlier statements that the company is not planning to produce meat products from cloned animals. The science involved in cloning animals is relatively new. As thoughtful leaders in our industry, we will continue to monitor further scientific research on this technology.

And here's the statement from Kraft:
Basil Maglaris, a spokesman for Kraft, the U.S.'s largest food company by revenue and a major cheese producer, said the company has told suppliers it will accept only ingredients from conventional animals. "The surveys we've seen indicate that consumers aren't receptive to ingredients from cloned animals," he said. The pledge now only applies to cloned animals; the company says it will continue to monitor consumer acceptance of products from clones' offspring.

The offspring of top breeding animals -- whether cloned or not -- can be sold to other producers for big bucks, therefore making it a profitable business to breed clones and sell their offspring. And since there's no regulation, no tracking, and no uniform policies on food from cloned animal offspring, it seems virtually guaranteed that meat and dairy from cloned animals (perhaps the spent breeding clones are sent to slaughter) and their offspring will eventually dominate the food supply as more producers switch to breeding with cloned animals and their offspring for a competitive edge. And it's no surprise that food from cloned animals has already entered the food supply, as the de facto integration is wearing down consumer resistance to the idea of eating meat and dairy from clones, thus following the same insidious path with which GMO crops were ambushed into the American food supply.

Here's a telling statement:
One thing the companies won't be able to do is identify the offspring of cloned animals. As Viagen President Mark Walton explained, "the database won't track cloned offspring because they are not clones. They are the same as every other animal ever produced from two parents."

I don't know if animal breeds can be patented (as are their GMO seed counterparts), but as long as these cloning companies can continue to tout "new and improved" breeds, I assume that producers will want to keep buying from them in order to stay competitive. Agribusiness sees a profit in reducing the animal gene pool by cloning, and further controlling and concentrating all animal and plant genetic lines.





]]> The real issue is food from offspring of clones

I think the real issue is food from the offspring of clones, and for the most part, the food industry has not taken any sort of meaningful stand on that issue. For producers, the real value of clones lies in reproducing top breeders and using the clones to breed for specific traits, such as bigger and more productive offspring. Therefore, the companies that have stated that they won't use food from cloned animals are really making empty promises since it's primarily the food from the offspring of these clones that they intend to market.

Here's a quote from Trans Ova Genetics President David Faber:
After making a $10,000 to $20,000 investment on one of these animals, it doesn't make economic sense to put them into the food supply, Faber said. "The farmers and producers who use this technology are mainly interested in capturing genetic value to produce higher quality animals," he said.

Therefore, I don't think the companies that have pledged not to sell food from clones deserve praise for trying to spin a purely economic decision on cloning as a socially responsible one, since it's merely not profitable for them at this point to be using clones as meat animals. If they said that they would not use food from cloned animals or their offspring anytime now or in the future, that would be a real victory for consumers, but they won't ever say that.

Here is Smithfield Foods' statement from their website:
Smithfield Foods, Inc. (NYSE:SFD) reiterated earlier statements that the company is not planning to produce meat products from cloned animals. The science involved in cloning animals is relatively new. As thoughtful leaders in our industry, we will continue to monitor further scientific research on this technology.

And here's the statement from Kraft:
Basil Maglaris, a spokesman for Kraft, the U.S.'s largest food company by revenue and a major cheese producer, said the company has told suppliers it will accept only ingredients from conventional animals. "The surveys we've seen indicate that consumers aren't receptive to ingredients from cloned animals," he said. The pledge now only applies to cloned animals; the company says it will continue to monitor consumer acceptance of products from clones' offspring.

The offspring of top breeding animals -- whether cloned or not -- can be sold to other producers for big bucks, therefore making it a profitable business to breed clones and sell their offspring. And since there's no regulation, no tracking, and no uniform policies on food from cloned animal offspring, it seems virtually guaranteed that meat and dairy from cloned animals (perhaps the spent breeding clones are sent to slaughter) and their offspring will eventually dominate the food supply as more producers switch to breeding with cloned animals and their offspring for a competitive edge. And it's no surprise that food from cloned animals has already entered the food supply, as the de facto integration is wearing down consumer resistance to the idea of eating meat and dairy from clones, thus following the same insidious path with which GMO crops were ambushed into the American food supply.

Here's a telling statement:
One thing the companies won't be able to do is identify the offspring of cloned animals. As Viagen President Mark Walton explained, "the database won't track cloned offspring because they are not clones. They are the same as every other animal ever produced from two parents."

I don't know if animal breeds can be patented (as are their GMO seed counterparts), but as long as these cloning companies can continue to tout "new and improved" breeds, I assume that producers will want to keep buying from them in order to stay competitive. Agribusiness sees a profit in reducing the animal gene pool by cloning, and further controlling and concentrating all animal and plant genetic lines.





]]> Comment #5 by MAD MAC http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/ Sat, 06 Sep 2008 05:58:46 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/5 Why would that be a victory for consumers?

"If they said that they would not use food from cloned animals or their offspring anytime now or in the future, that would be a real victory for consumers, but they won't ever say that."

There are only two concerns I can see:

a. Safety. There is NO reason to believe there are safety concerns - so that's out the window.

b. Patent. Here is a legitimate concern given what happened with Monsantos genetically modified crops.

If issue "b" can be addressed, then this whole thing is a non-issue.

Victory in Pattani

]]> Why would that be a victory for consumers?

"If they said that they would not use food from cloned animals or their offspring anytime now or in the future, that would be a real victory for consumers, but they won't ever say that."

There are only two concerns I can see:

a. Safety. There is NO reason to believe there are safety concerns - so that's out the window.

b. Patent. Here is a legitimate concern given what happened with Monsantos genetically modified crops.

If issue "b" can be addressed, then this whole thing is a non-issue.

Victory in Pattani

]]> Comment #6 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/ Sat, 06 Sep 2008 07:16:04 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/6 "Saxib"??

You are way out in front of the pack, Mad Mac.  Of course, I am still further ahead -- ha ha -- , being the sole representative in the Gristmill community (I believe) of the teensy "I cry for fish" minority (peek, if you dare, at the extraordinarily dispiriting and unpleasant "Palin Around" thread, dominated by the painfully logodiarrhaeic Saluki).  Still, you are on the right side; you grasp the basic considerations, unlike many carnivores.
Movesii has done a lot of work, and has given us a lot of good information.  But I am not sure why M. wishes to narrow the discussion with the expression "the real issue."  And certainly we could use a good working definition of "socially responsible."  In the context of a charged-up GOP base, gladly swallowing John McCain's simplistic equation of "service" as "enlisting in a branch of the military," as well as his perverse, nay bizarrissimo, description of the Democrats, and not the Republicans, as the "Me First" party, we could use some clarification in this case too.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.



]]> "Saxib"??

You are way out in front of the pack, Mad Mac.  Of course, I am still further ahead -- ha ha -- , being the sole representative in the Gristmill community (I believe) of the teensy "I cry for fish" minority (peek, if you dare, at the extraordinarily dispiriting and unpleasant "Palin Around" thread, dominated by the painfully logodiarrhaeic Saluki).  Still, you are on the right side; you grasp the basic considerations, unlike many carnivores.
Movesii has done a lot of work, and has given us a lot of good information.  But I am not sure why M. wishes to narrow the discussion with the expression "the real issue."  And certainly we could use a good working definition of "socially responsible."  In the context of a charged-up GOP base, gladly swallowing John McCain's simplistic equation of "service" as "enlisting in a branch of the military," as well as his perverse, nay bizarrissimo, description of the Democrats, and not the Republicans, as the "Me First" party, we could use some clarification in this case too.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.



]]> Comment #7 by Angelsnecropolis http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/ Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:54:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/7 We Eat GM Anyways

What most people don't understand is that we have been eating genetically modified plants and animals for centuries. Even before peas were being bread for green or yellow colors, we have been mating our animals and plants with those that have the most desirable traits whether that is flavor, texture, shape, color, or any other quality.

By interfering with the processes of natural selection humans are altering the gene pool of the food they eat to get the traits that we want in our food. The only difference in this method of GM and others is it isn't done in a science lab. I've always been a supporter of GM food but only if the traits it creates benefit human society. It's a complete disgrace to the human race when corporations like Monsanto create self destructive seeds so that growers have to continuously buy their seeds. That is just unacceptable.

In regards to cloning... this is just another new technology that people will throw their arms up about without even knowing the facts. One can make the claim that we "don't know if it's safe" but that only show the ignorance of the subject in question. I would challenge the deniers to find evidence to support claims that cloned food is not safe before trying to incite "fear of the new."

]]> We Eat GM Anyways

What most people don't understand is that we have been eating genetically modified plants and animals for centuries. Even before peas were being bread for green or yellow colors, we have been mating our animals and plants with those that have the most desirable traits whether that is flavor, texture, shape, color, or any other quality.

By interfering with the processes of natural selection humans are altering the gene pool of the food they eat to get the traits that we want in our food. The only difference in this method of GM and others is it isn't done in a science lab. I've always been a supporter of GM food but only if the traits it creates benefit human society. It's a complete disgrace to the human race when corporations like Monsanto create self destructive seeds so that growers have to continuously buy their seeds. That is just unacceptable.

In regards to cloning... this is just another new technology that people will throw their arms up about without even knowing the facts. One can make the claim that we "don't know if it's safe" but that only show the ignorance of the subject in question. I would challenge the deniers to find evidence to support claims that cloned food is not safe before trying to incite "fear of the new."

]]> Comment #8 by moyesii http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/ Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:31:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/8 Traditional breeding vs. genetic engineering

Angelsnecropolis, You're confusing traditional breeding and genetic engineering, which are completely different in both their means and ends. This has already been discussed to death on grist before. The USDA itself differentiates these two processes.

And why do you assume that anti-GMO people are all luddites? Just because some of us don't care to go into a dissertation here on the subject doesn't mean that we haven't done our research. According to this report, there is a very high failure rate in the cloning process, and even among those few that reach full-term, clones and their offspring often suffer from hidden genetic defects that don't manifest until adulthood or postmortem. Therefore, I don't see how anyone can claim that traditional breeding and genetic engineering are the same or even similar processes or that the end products are not radically different. And taking into account the high prevalence of disease and genetic defects among clones and their offspring, it seems quite rational that people should be concerned about the safety of consuming these foods.

]]> Traditional breeding vs. genetic engineering

Angelsnecropolis, You're confusing traditional breeding and genetic engineering, which are completely different in both their means and ends. This has already been discussed to death on grist before. The USDA itself differentiates these two processes.

And why do you assume that anti-GMO people are all luddites? Just because some of us don't care to go into a dissertation here on the subject doesn't mean that we haven't done our research. According to this report, there is a very high failure rate in the cloning process, and even among those few that reach full-term, clones and their offspring often suffer from hidden genetic defects that don't manifest until adulthood or postmortem. Therefore, I don't see how anyone can claim that traditional breeding and genetic engineering are the same or even similar processes or that the end products are not radically different. And taking into account the high prevalence of disease and genetic defects among clones and their offspring, it seems quite rational that people should be concerned about the safety of consuming these foods.

]]> Comment #9 by cavecanem http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/ Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:21:04 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mooo-ve-over-fda/9 My main issue...

My main issue... is the fact that the FDA disallows product labelling. Let them clone animals, but allow people the choice to avoid their food.

They are just afraid of labelling, because they know most people won't eat it.

Food labels should let us know if it is genetically modified (in the current sense) and if meat is cloned.

]]> My main issue...

My main issue... is the fact that the FDA disallows product labelling. Let them clone animals, but allow people the choice to avoid their food.

They are just afraid of labelling, because they know most people won't eat it.

Food labels should let us know if it is genetically modified (in the current sense) and if meat is cloned.

]]>