WP, pg1: FDA Is Set To Approve Milk, Meat From Cloned Animals

[DeepModem Mom]

FDA Is Set To Approve Milk, Meat From Clones
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 17, 2006; Page A01

Three years after the Food and Drug Administration first hinted that it might permit the sale of milk and meat from cloned animals, prompting public reactions that ranged from curiosity to disgust, the agency is poised to endorse marketing of the mass-produced animals for public consumption.

The decision, expected by the end of this year, is based largely on new data indicating that milk and meat from cloned livestock and their offspring pose no unique risks to consumers.

"Our evaluation is that the food from cloned animals is as safe as the food we eat every day," said Stephen F. Sundlof, the FDA's chief of veterinary medicine, who has overseen the long-stalled risk assessment.

Farmers and companies that have been growing cloned barnyard animals from single cells in anticipation of a lucrative market say cloning will bring consumers a level of consistency and quality impossible to attain with conventional breeding, making perfectly marbled beef and reliably lean and tasty pork the norm on grocery shelves.

But groups opposed to the new technology, including a coalition of powerful food companies concerned that the public will reject Dolly-the-Lamb chops and clonal cream in their coffee, have not given up....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601337.html

[Bitwit1234]

1. CoffeeMate

Sure are glad that I use liquid coffeemate in MY coffee. I sure wouldn't want to drink that milk. Some people might but not me....

[Thor_MN]

4. So do you run screaming away from people conceived via IVF as well?

If you drink milk or eat meat, why would you have a problem with this? Are animals created other than by their parents doing the horizontal mambo somehow "unclean"?

If you want to focus on a problem with cloned animals, consider large groups genetically identical animals that would identically susceptible to diseases. Diversity is a good thing for the long run.

[Eurobabe]

11. To my knowledge IVF involves 2 parents genes

I always thought cloning involved DNA from ONE animal, no fertilization necessary.

you are talking about two very different processes here.

[wickerwoman]

13. I think it involves an egg from one animal

and the genetic material from another. They suck out the genetic material from the egg and then insert the material from the cow they want to clone.

In any case, even with mild genetic drift, I don't see how that would transfer to humans drinking the milk or eating the meat. I wouldn't have a problem with either. I think the problem is (as someone said upthread) lack of diversity to fight diseases and the chance that all the ancient breeds could go extinct. I have a lot less problem with this than I do with GM foods. At least it's still a cow's DNA.

[Kali]

27. I already worry about the loss of diversity with the use of AI.

You have the whole industry (that is my inaccurate conclusion, by the way) using sperm from a couple of Angus bulls to turn their herds black, because that is what the market "pays" for....grrrrrrr

:rant: :blush: sorry, personal gripe.

[Eurobabe]

34. No, I am talking about the human IVF procedure

My friend had it done, her egg, her hubby's swimmers. No baby tho. :(

[Nihil]

18. What's CoffeeMate made from?

It wouldn't be extracts of the lowest quality milk would it?
(i.e., the stuff that is too bad to be actually sold as milk)?

CoffeeMate is part of the reason I drink coffee black.

[SoyCat]

20. It's non-dairy and is made from palm oil, etc. (Not really healthy)

[Nihil]

21. Thanks.

I don't like the taste or smell of it but didn't know what it actually was.
:hi:

[Ignis]

24. FYI, CoffeeMate is not non-dairy.

It's lactose-free, but "non-dairy" creamers often contain milk derivatives.

[LeftyMom]

32. This is correct

Most "non-dairy" creamers (and many "non-dairy" cheeses as well) contain the dairy protein casein. Casein ought to be avoided as it is, amongst other things, highly allergenic, addictive and a great promoter of the growth of cancerous tumors in human tissue.

Silk makes a non-dairy creamer that is actually completely free of dairy and derivatives. I think some other soymilk companies do as well, but I don't drink coffee so I'm probably not the best person to ask.

[Ignis]

36. Silk creamer is delicious, too!

Thanks for that update. It's sad how difficult it is to find truly milk-free "non-dairy" items.

[Javaman]

35. And coffee mate is soooooo much better for you...

ever read the ingredients?

[LibertyorDeath]

2. What could possibly go wrong ?

I see only good things coming from this
after all the FDA is fanatical about Public health & safety
not for one minute would they put the public at risk in favor of Corporate
profits.

Never I say !!

Never!!

Yum Yum doly chops.....

Thanks for the info DMM I had not heard of this.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. You're welcome. I've been feeling squeamish since I posted.

First I'd heard of it, too --

[Occulus]

5. If you think that's bad,

try this.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. I had no idea all this was going on -- ugh! nt

[MadMaddie]

7. Why would we need to clone animals for food? We have

plenty of farms and cows, chickens and pigs...

Am I missing something...?

[bananas]

8. Intellectual property rights

If you own the rights to the clone, then you make lots of money.

[MadMaddie]

9. Oh yea....that...always that

:banghead:

[Trillo]

10. Interesting, corporate ownership of DNA?

It would certainly explain the seemingly unending efforts to get citizens DNA into databanks.

[bananas]

17. It's been going for many years

I think Oregan has/had a law against it.
Other states, any blood test etc belonged to whoever,
if they used the results to develop a cancer cure etc they owned it,
otherwise it would be tied up in lawsuits and dissuade investors,
or so the reasoning went...but then I guess you could get sued for making a baby with your own dna?

[NashVegas]

25. And There's No Mention of Patent Rights In This Article - Not Anywhere

I'm so sick of the 'frankenfood' arguments. They're emotional and go nowhere without data from long-term research.

Even the International Dairy Foods Association - which represents huge conglomerate - lobbied AGAINST cloned dairy products.

[Trillo]

26. humans are animals.

me thinks the open-source GPL shows some of the way out of the DNA mess. If DNA truly is part of the commons, then why is it being privatized?

[Solon]

28. I haven't been able to keep up with the research...

but isn't cloning whole animals, specifically mammals, still imperfect? Dolly, the first cloned Mammal, had numerous problems due to being cloned from an adult animal. Suffering from many of the symptoms of older animals much earlier in life, etc.

Also, as far as Patents, this gets complicated, generally, there are 3 ways to go about patenting DNA, the first, and most obvious, is the patenting of a modified organism, like an oil eating bacteria that was engineered in the lab. The second is gene therapy(this one is really troubling), where a modified gene and the retro-virus used in the therapy are patented to eliminate various hereditary diseases. The 3rd are discovery patents, which shouldn't qualify, but apparently patents aren't just for inventions anymore. Basically, companies will take a tissue sample of some animal, like a cow, and map its DNA, apply for a patent FOR that DNA, unmodified, and then sit on it. To be honest, I don't even know why they are allowed to do this, I mean, seriously, prior art applies I would think.

My problem with "Frankenfood" isn't so much the safety aspect, but rather what legal framework it exists in. The biggest problem, in my view, is the fact that the patenting of organisms that are self-propogating is going to create a legal nightmare in the years to come, and may RETARD research that can help humanity.

Patents used to be reserved for inventions, and, under all circumstances, that new device you invented isn't going to up and replicate itself in the next season, nor is it going to spread on its own either. Inventions need humans to build them, organisms don't. Monsanto, as an example, is becoming especially anal about this, many GM crops are now in the "wild" so to speak, and Monsanto is trying to keep control of their "invention", problem is, that its impossible. As of right now, they still, theoritically, have control of their IP, but I would imagine that's going to end soon, for practical reasons if anything else.

This is true of other patents that are placed on living organisms, especially animals and plants that can survive in a variety of enviroments.

[NashVegas]

29. Depends on Whom You Ask

As far as messed-up animal clones goes. If there's any hard research that shows it's flakey, it's buried in a vault somewhere.

Patents used to be reserved for inventions, and, under all circumstances, that new device you invented isn't going to up and replicate itself in the next season, nor is it going to spread on its own either. Inventions need humans to build them, organisms don't.

I feel exactly the same way, with one proviso: as laboratories/patent-holders control more of the material that's out there, organisms will need human intervention. That's where the greatest danger lies, IMO. Selective breeding among crop varieties has been practiced since agriculture became recorded. With technology/patents to take this out of the hands of open-source practitioners, the knowledge fades from public hands. Traditional farmers could become thought of as cultists, much as medicinal herbalists who get treated with skepticism.

[PaulaFarrell]

43. Without long-term research

That's EXACTLY what's wrong with these foods. No long-term research has been done on their safety as foods. They are appoved under the premise that they are 'substantially' the same as the oroginal food, hence a potato with a fish gene is still just a potato. The only GM food product tested under laboratory conditions as rigourous as for medecines was abandoned as unsafe (some kind of pea in Australia). I don't like being a guinea pig for the chemical companies.


What really appeals to the emotions is the statemnets by the manufacturers that these foods wil end world hunger, stop blindness, save the environment, you name it. There have been a few GM products removed from the market as unsafe, but I've yet to see any tangible benefit to the human race or environment. Ecept in the case in this article of course, as now I'll FINALLY be able to have consistently marbled meat!!! (except of course that these animals will still be raised in fascory farms so they'll still take like crap. But they'll look pretty)

I suspect the reason the IDF lobbied againstthis is they know it will drive more people to organic milk, or to abandon mil entirely.

[Vidar]

31. Next step is for republican lawyers to patent cows.

[wickerwoman]

14. Because it's a lot easier to produce a uniform product.

It took hundreds of years to develop the breeds we have now- each one specialized to produce meat, or wool, or eggs, or twins, more than nature intended. It's much easier to just clone a chicken with really big breasts than it is to breed for this characteristic (which can take generations and is never a certain process.)

I'm not advocating that we go here- but I can see some good reasons why companies would want to.

[bananas]

16. That's what I like - chicks with big breasts!

Send in the clones!

[w4rma]

12. This is bad. This is very bad. (nt)

[OhioChick]

15. This is disturbing,

especially given the fact that they have no longterm studies regarding the human consumption of cloned meats and milk. Not good.....

[outofbounds]

19. Five years from now

the FDA will makes a statement to the effect of; Cloned meat and milk have been found to cause a strain of virus we have no cure for or idea how to cure it. It never seems to fail

[cobalt1999]

22. Not so scary as some are making it out to be.

I figure eventually we'll be growing cloned meat in vats and not using animals at all except for the initial DNA. Maybe one day you'll toss some starter cells and some growth mix into your crockpot and grow your own roast.

[BlueEyedSon]

23. What's wrong with an udder growing in a petri dish?

All that extra cow is overhead.....

[NobleCynic]

30. Priorities people priorities

Genetically modified cow milk is in all likelihood far safer than the growth hormones given to the cows we already have.

Growth hormones are far more dangerous. Everyone familiar with the ever dropping age of puberty in young woman? Earlier than 10 years of age? Please concentrate on the greater problem.

At the end of the day the GM milk probably won't screw with your body chemistry any differently than normal cows milk. However, standard milk does because of growth hormones.

[Nihil]

33. Correct ... so why choose the less known of the two evils?

> At the end of the day the GM milk probably won't screw with your body
> chemistry any differently than normal cows milk. However, standard milk
> does because of growth hormones.

The correct approach is to get rid of the (artificial, untested) growth
hormones from the (uncloned) cows, not to promote GM milk as a "safer"
alternative!

[Jcrowley]

37. False choices

Genetically modified everything is very bad for you and contrary to the belief there actually have been numerous tests of a variety of GMO's and there are no exceptions to the fact that all had very grave problems.

As an aside there is no need for more milk there is already a gigantic surplus. This is about the Greed Gene.

[NobleCynic]

40. GM Everything is bad you say?

I will grant that you could eliminate growth hormones and genetic modification at the same time, in a sense it could be considered a false choice, but I simply cannot buy the luddite contention that GM anything is bad. It's not a false choice because you lose the support of people like me if you want to eliminate both. There are significant problems with the growth hormones currently used in the marketplace, and there are problems with some GM foods. To assume that anything GM is bad is not only shows an incredible lack of understanding regarding how the technology works, but is dangerous in terms of building the support necessary to properly control and regulate GM technology.

If you argue from a more rational stance, you might not be opposed unconditionally by GM technology companies and scientists. IF you argue for proper regulation rather than just an outright ban, you'd be surprised at the support you can muster from within the scientific community. More to the point, you'd be facing less opposition from the corporate interests as well.

Less support means less chance of success. It is not entirely a false choice presented.

[Jcrowley]

41. Two things

1) You should first acknowledge that you used the time honored technique of name-calling, "luddite", which betrays the weakness of your argument. Be aware that Monsanto and it's PR machine throws this term around as loosely as you just did. If you wish I can pull numerous examples of such folly to your attention. That's not good company.

2) You can't know this so it's okay and healthy for you to dispute this but I have been involved with, on many levels, GMO's, research, analysis for great portions of the last 15 years and know as much about this, at various levels and in great detail, as most anyone you will find. I realize that means nothing here. Apologies if that sounds off putting.

GMO's should be banned immediately. Not only is there no need for this but it is so extremely energy intensive, among it's many ills, as to cause no small amount of pollutants. It matters not one whit who's support is won or lost, it's best to examine the situation in it's totality and simply say you're piece without regard for garnering "support".

Beware of Junk Science just as you should beware of the false gods Watson and Crick who needed "junk" DNA to pass off their myth.

[NobleCynic]

42. Fair enough

Perhaps luddite was out of line.

However, what exactly do you mean by your Watson and Crick statement?

And where exactly have you worked in the field?

[CHIMO]

38. CLONED MEAT

How do you like your steak? Well-cloned? Well, if you live in the States, you'll be glad to hear that the country's Food and Drug Administration is set to approve meat and milk from cloned animals. In a statement issued yesterday, the FDA's chief of veterinary medicine proclaimed that meat and dairy from cloned cattle is every bit as safe as conventionally-bred animal products. Although some consumer advocates are proving a little bit cloned-lactose-intolerant.

Jaydee Hanson is the program director for the Center for Food Safety. We reached him in Washington, DC.

http://www.cbc.ca/aih/latestshow.html

http://cbc.ca/asithappens/media/dailyshow/2006-10-18-aih2.ram

Starts at 15:10 into the part.

[NJCher]

39. Whole Foods will clean up

They'll offer NOCLONZ brand milk and meat. Only double the price of the regular cloned stuff.




Cher