« YMMV: Hypermiling for Fun and Profit | Blog Index | More Financial Aid for CEOs »
F.D.A. Jumps the (Cloned) Shark
The New York Times reports that the F.D.A. offered a draft resolution today, announcing its intention to approve the sale of meat and milk from cloned animals. A voluntary moratorium on food from cloned animals has been in place since 2001 to allow the F.D.A. to study its safety. But critics say the science is still shaky.
The F.D.A., which has long maintained that cows given growth hormones produce milk which is "indistinguishable" from that of hormone-free cows, concludes that milk and meat from cloned animals is "virtually indistinguishable" from those of—let's call them real animals. The agency isn't even suggesting any special labeling for the products. I find that frightening. And roughly 65 percent of consumers agree, indicating in a recent poll that they are uncomfortable with the idea of cloned food. The dairy industry has also expressed some discomfort, after a survey revealed that 14 percent of women would stop using dairy products altogether if milk from clones was introduced.
A few juicy highlights from the Times story:
[E]ven if two animals have identical genes, they can turn out differently if those genes are turned on or off at different times.…These differences are presumed to account in large measure for the low success rate of cloning. Fetuses can grow unusually large…Many clones die during gestation or shortly after birth. Some are born with deformed heads or limbs or problems with their hearts, lungs or other organs.
Yummy.
The draft assessment based its conclusions in part on studies, some done by cloning companies, comparing the composition of the milk, meat and blood of cloned animals and conventional animals.
Said one F.D.A. officer: "I ate this meat and I found it delicious. I ate this meat and I found it delicious." I'm convinced.
Posted by Cameron Scott on 12/28/06 at 1:44 PM | E-mail | Print | Digg | de.licio.us | Reddit | Newsvine | Yahoo! MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Netscape | Google |
Comments
They should be allowed to clone, but they should label their products so the custumers would have a choice between nonclone/clone dairy products.
Posted by: Alessia Valenty on 01/10/07 at 6:19 PM
They should be allowed to clone, but they should label their products so the custumers would have a choice between nonclone/clone dairy products.
Posted by: Alessia Valenty on 01/10/07 at 6:20 PM
ARCHIVE
September 9, 2007 - September 15, 2007
September 2, 2007 - September 8, 2007
August 26, 2007 - September 1, 2007
August 19, 2007 - August 25, 2007
August 12, 2007 - August 18, 2007
August 5, 2007 - August 11, 2007
July 29, 2007 - August 4, 2007
April 22, 2007 - April 28, 2007
April 15, 2007 - April 21, 2007
April 8, 2007 - April 14, 2007
March 25, 2007 - March 31, 2007
March 18, 2007 - March 24, 2007
March 11, 2007 - March 17, 2007
March 4, 2007 - March 10, 2007
February 25, 2007 - March 3, 2007
February 18, 2007 - February 24, 2007
February 11, 2007 - February 17, 2007
February 4, 2007 - February 10, 2007
January 28, 2007 - February 3, 2007
January 21, 2007 - January 27, 2007
January 14, 2007 - January 20, 2007
RECENT COMMENTS
The Petraeus/Crocker Report: It's Crocker Time! (Part Three) (1)
Ames Tideman wrote:
The testimony was a complete mess. ...
[more]
Scientific Proof That Liberals Are Smarter (4)
MoonDragon wrote:
Can we bias any study to show a tendency for desired resul...
[more]
Protesters in Berkeley: Up a Tree and Fenced In (13)
Brian K wrote:
Kirilovslogic,
Wow. Im not talking about sucking up to th...
[more]
NRA Offers Free Memberships to Soldiers (Step Up, Costco) (17)
Brian K wrote:
Sneezer,
First of all it is NOT his "topic sentance" it is...
[more]
MoveOn, Anbar, and Lantos: Final Thoughts on the Petraeus and Crocker Hearing (1)
Eric Ferguson wrote:
You're not too deep in the weeds on that point about Irani...
[more]
Chuck Hagel, Next SecDef? (4)
bob t wrote:
Wes Clark(Catholic) would be my first choice, but Hagel co...
[more]
Scientific Proof That Liberals Are Not Smarter (4)
Eric Ferguson wrote:
The message intended was a good one, because Petraeus has ...
[more]
Happy Anniversary, Katrina Victims! You Could Celebrate With Cash if You Weren't So Unscrupulous (5)
jah wrote:
I was annoyed by your title, but i understand and relate t...
[more]
White House Advisor Appears to Taunt Bin Laden (10)
Jaime Galarza wrote:
It reminds me of the now infamous "Bring them on" comment....
[more]
Donald Rumsfeld: Not Done Lying! (3)
Jonathan Stein wrote:
Yes, Dan....
[more]
Movable Type 3.33
What the real question needs to be, is WHY do we need to clone animals for the food industry? Cloning is expensive and inefficient. Most animals produce just fine without our help. Millions of years of genetic selection and thousands of years of selective breeding has enabled humans to maximize positive attributes for the animals and plants they are utilizing. Cloning, genetic modification is to me much like trying to dig a well with a bunker busting bomb. You might be able to make a big hole with water inside it, but you might not like all the unintended consquences of the tool your using to dig it.
Posted by: EnviroBitch on 12/29/06 at 11:06 AM