Google what? You have not quoted a single retort. Instead, you have given me a list of research papers to read. And, in your next post, you once again go into a diatribe about HOW an animal is cloned. I know how it is done. "How" it is performed was never in question.

Now, how about taking my post point by point, and telling me what facts you dispute and why -- with quotes and attributions. Diversionary tactics don't fly with me. Let's get back to the "meat" (pardon the pun) of the argument, shall we?

Wonderful! Now, how does that apply to my argument that Americans should have the choice whether or not they want to ingest cloned meat?

And, since you're trying to impress me with your background, how does it apply to my points about the bad economics of cloning?

Would you like to concede those points?

That's not surprising as the cost of those procedures is upwards of $10,000. So... what is your point here regarding transgenic mice and how farming them out to companies applies to the safety of eating cloned meat as well as the economic impact and ethical issues of cloning as they relate to animal suffering?

Please quote where I have "belittled" you. On the contrary, it is you who has attempted to "belittle" me. Here are your quotes:

Further.. if you are going to assert that "my logic is faulty" then why have you not been able to specifically show me where? Please provide attributions and quotes on the internet that I can reference.

OK, I'm willing to play.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. Chairman of the international Cancer Prevention Coalition

"Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He has published some 260 peer reviewed articles, and authored or co-authored 11 books including: the prize-winning 1978 The Politics of Cancer; the 1995 Safe Shopper's Bible; the 1998 Breast Cancer Prevention Program; the 1998 The Politics of Cancer, Revisited; the 2001 GOT (Genetically Engineered) MILK! The Monsanto rBGH/BST Milk Wars Handbook; the 2001 Unreasonable Risk. How to Avoid Cancer from Cosmetics and Personal Care Products: The Neways Story; and the 2005 Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War.

Dr. Epstein is an internationally recognized authority on avoidable causes of cancer, particularly unknowing exposures to industrial carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products--food, cosmetics and toiletries, and household products including pesticides--besides carcinogenic prescription drugs.

Dr. Epstein's past public policy activities include: consultant to the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works; drafting Congressional legislation; frequently invited Congressional testimony; membership of key federal committees including EPA's Health Effects Advisory Committee, and the Department of Labor's Advisory Committee on the Regulation of Occupational Carcinogens; and key expert on banning of hazardous products and pesticides including DDT, Aldrin and Chlordane. He is the leading international expert on cancer risks of petrochemicals and of consumer products including: rBGH milk; meat from cattle implanted with sex hormones in feedlots, on which he has testified for the E.C. at January 1997 WTO hearings; and irradiated food. In 1998, he presented "Legislative Proposals for Reversing the Cancer Epidemic" to the Swedish Parliament, and in 1999 to the U.K. All Parliamentary Cancer Group. He is also the leading critic of the cancer establishment, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS), for fixation on damage control--screening, diagnosis and treatment, and genetic research--with indifference for cancer prevention, which for the ACS extends to hostility. This mindset is compounded by conflicts of interest with the cancer drug industry, and also with the petrochemical and other industries in the case of the ACS.

His past professional society involvement includes: founder of the Environmental Mutagen Society; President of the Society for Occupational and Environmental Health; President of the Rachel Carson Council; and advisor to environmental, citizen activist and organized labor groups.

His numerous honors include: the 1969 Society of Toxicology Achievement Award; the 1977 National Wildlife Federation Conservancy Award; the 1989 Environmental Justice Award; the 1998 Right Livelihood Award ("Alternative Nobel Prize") for international contributions to cancer prevention; the 1999 Bioneers Award; the 2000 Project Censored Award ("Alternative Pulitzer Prize" for investigative journalism) for an article critiquing the American Cancer Society, and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for Humanitarianism from the Polish Academy of Medicine..."
http://www.preventcancer.com/about/epstein.htm

That's wonderful. Now, since you've done the statistical analyses, why can't you dispute anything specifically that I've presented? All I have seen you say is that cloned meats do not contain any measurable amounts of pathogens (your quote below). That does not prove cloned meats are safe for human consumption. The fact is the FDA is "assuming" cloning is safe based on a four year study. However, they also "assumed" Vioxx was safe.

The absence of known pathogens does not necessarily mean something is safe to eat as stated above.

Now... who is doing the "belittling" that you mentioned above?

When you attempt to patronize me with your sarcastic remarks, it weakens your case and your credibility. I would ask that you please refrain from these types of childish remarks in the future, and stick to the point at hand.

I will cut and paste my post for your reference to give you the opportunity to take apart my argument point by point. I welcome it, as I welcome a good debate.

Please address the economic impact as well as the ethical issues of cloning. For example, do you dispute that cloning cattle results in a high degree of disease and birth defects?

But once again, I'd like quotes with attributions and links, please.
-------------------------------------

Can you quote some statistics to back up your allegation? On the contrary, I seem to be finding evidence of a glut of meat -- both chicken and beef on the U.S. market:

"In November, Tyson ended its fiscal year with a third straight quarterly loss, as its chicken and beef businesses were hurt by a glut of meat on the market. Agricultural economists have blamed the meat surplus on a range of factors, including overproduction following high market prices for animals in the past two years."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4440816.html

The glut drove meat prices down... and as a result, the struggling meat industry is looking at the recent winter storms on the Plains as prompting beef prices to rise next year.

What about the overproduction of milk?

"Carol Tucker Foreman, of the Consumer Federation of America, said U.S. farmers produce more milk than Americans can drink, and the government must buy the surplus. "Since 1999, dairy-support programs have cost taxpayers over $5 billion," she said."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...8_clone29.html

Quote:
Actual "ELECTROPORATION" of Enucleated Zygotes with somatic DNA will give us a certain higher yield in the number of animals.
Again.. where are you numbers? The low success rate and the high number of abnormalites in cloned animals not only makes no economic sense, but it is cruel to animals. Further... Did you know that this process will cost an estimated $15,000 per procedure?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...8_clone29.html

Quote:
And most of our beef is beginning to get imported from Southeat Asia and South America just like the rest of our food...
There has been much resistance to the idea of consuming cloned meats in much of the world. It would seem to me that instead of being positive for our trade balance, this would be a big negative as other countries will be suspect of the safety of US Food.

Countries like Japan and South Korea have already had or have bans of U.S. meat in place due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Mad Cow) worries. In fact in 2006, 21 countries banned the importation of U.S. meat over safety concerns. And you think the U.S. food supply is safe? Apparently, those countries think so.

" According to a recent report to the European Union’s executive arm by the Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, “Groups of citizens, and even some member states, would be likely to resist the import and/or marketing [labeled or unlabeled] of cloned animals and their products.“

"In South Korea, one of the largest export markets for U.S. beef, cloned foods “are not positive“ said Sockjoong Yoon, minister for public affairs at the South Korean Embassy in Washington. Chong Ghee Ahn, the embassy’s economic counselor, said it was too early to say what impact cloning might have on U.S. exports. However, he added that in the wake of mad-cow disease and avian flu, “Korean customers are getting very, very sensitive.“
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content...ontentid=94274

Regarding South America: Columbia and Peru have only recently reopened importation of U.S. meat after banning it due to Mad Cow concerns. This is not new trade as you imply. In 2003 for example, the U.S. exported a combined total of more than $4 million worth of beef and beef products to Colombia and Peru.
http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fu...e&artNum=12879

Quote:
Cloning is a way to boost our market share for rare meats and increase the premium. It is not cool as an overall practice, but we live in a capitalistic society and well...
In what way, when there is international resistance to cloned meat products?

Quote:
Just price out tenderloins or filet mignons... And when is the last time $2 billion business for beef BBQ production can be told ANYTHING BUT NO?

Now you know why they are cloning animals...
Actually, meat prices are lower due to the glut of beef and chicken on the market. Again, please see the first article I quoted regarding Tyson's profits falling.

The bottom line... the safety of cloned meat is still in question.

The nonprofit advocacy group the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., cited a number of health and safety problems related to cloned livestock that the group says the agency has not properly addressed.

People eating cloned meat would be exposed to higher amounts of animal hormones, related to the cloning process, the group says.

The animals themselves would suffer from the high incidence of disease and birth defects currently recorded in cloned animals.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ed-meat_2.html

And this from a news release I received fromThe Center for Food Safety:
“When they deny us mandatory labels, they don’t just deny us the right to choose,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety.

“They also deny our health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to this food,” Kimbrell said. “It’s bad enough they’re making us guinea pigs. But when we have health effects, we won’t be able to trace it.”

I don't choose to be the FDA's guinea pig. Do you?
_________________

eating cloned animal meat would really freak me out.

i'm not a scientist, but i gather that the clones are just regular animals that have the same genetics as another animal - which could be handy and could help by producing "superior" food products with a lot less time that breeding takes, but just knowing it was a clone would weird me out.

i don't mind that they want to "OK" it, but i personally would like some kind of label that says 'this pork chop is a product of a cloned pig" or something so i could decide whether i wanted to eat a cloned animal or not.

i don't know if any 'testing' has been done, or know of anyone who would want to be the testers, but i think the fda has some kind of responsibility to make sure beyond every shadow of a doubt that eating cloned meat wouldn't cause any adverse effects in people.

Wow. Just. Wow.

Srsly, there are way better things to spend time on.

Lots has been happening....I've PMed you.

I'm LOLing at your choice of pork for your example :p

LOL

I aim to please! :p

Please, please, please stop playing with matches.

In other words, you can't retort any of my facts either! :D

We've been through this before, but I'll try again, just one more time.

I don't care about any of your "facts" and I'm not trying to "retort" them. I leave that to people like AKAMonet, who has established her expertise and credibility in the subject and whose opinion, unlike your's, I respect. I just get very, very tired of what you seem to think passes as intelligent discussion.

I would have to take your posts seriously in order to try and "retort your facts."

You're psycho.

Retort that fact, bitch.

MEOW! Hissssssssss! :D :D :D

So then, why are you posting in this discussion if you're not going to discuss the topic? :confused:

Read carefully.

I didn't say I wasn't going to discuss the topic. I said I wasn't going to discuss it with you, or more precisely, I wasn't going to waste my time trying to respond to the merits, and I use that term as loosely and broadly as possible, of your "arguments."

As far as your arguments go, I can only try to warn others of the futility involved in trying to carry on a discussion like this with you.

Read carefully:

Ah, I see, so the "futility involved in trying to carry on a discussion like this" is because you don't have the facts to retort mine.

Or maybe this whole line of off-topic banter is to try to bury my post to Monet to try to take the off her-- as she STILL hasn't been able to dispute a simple fact I posted.

Exhibit 578 as to why it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you.

I'm done. I could be more productive banging my head against a wall, which I think I'll go do now.

Because this needs to be reposted...

Dear blueangel,

Why are your “debates” so one-sided? You can’t seem to grasp the concept of a debate. You only read what you want to read and exclude everything else yet you get huffy when someone does the same to you. You also seem to think you're always right. Where's the logic?

I see a trend of you taking things as a personal attack and being a total hag to everyone; even if they are trying to help you. Turning everything into a personal attack against you is childish. You are a grown woman, please act like one.

I’m not a frequent poster here, but even I can see how nasty your attitude is towards everyone. Oh, and e-stalking was never cool…I think you missed that memo. You are a very shady person on here and I wonder why you still have an account on greekchat.com. I’m sure you will think this message is a personal attack to you, but in reality it’s just the honest truth.

For the love of your sorority, please stop being a hag.

Cordially,

polosandpearls

'
Dear Sock puppet (or as they're called on most other boards, "Ghost")

Can you not post under your real name? Why are you so afraid? Now, would you like to contest any of the points I have made regarding cloning, or are you not up to the challenge?

Cordially,

BlueAngel

So, in other words, you don't have anything to retort any of the facts I've presented. OK.

http://www.nationalist.org/docs/law/conspiracy.html

That is all.

Oh wait...here's another one:
http://conspiracy.top-site-list.com/

My, my. Bless your little hag heart.

I am posting under my real name. Honey, don't assume too much, it won't get you very far. There are people in the world that like to read the site (any site) rather than post regularly. I can see why you think I would be a "sock puppet" "ghost" or any other cool internet lingo you've picked up...I am a random person that can tell how big of a jerk you are on here. Sweetheart, it's pretty easy to see how terrible you are without being an active poster.

"Challenge"? Come on, blueangel. It's a discussion, not a competition. I guess you missed that since you only read what you want to read and interpret things one-sided.

I guess the reason the hag still has her account here is for pure entertainment value. You have to admit this place would be very boring without the resident senile(s).

I've said it once, I'll say it again: I only speak the truth. You are a grown woman, please act like one.

Re: cloned meat:
As long as it tastes the same, I couldn't care less. And to answer your question, NO. I would not like to contest your "points". I'm pretty sure I'd rather argue with a rock.

You won't debate my points, because you can't. And, because you can't, you resort to personal attacks while hiding behind a bogus screen name. As they say in France, "Soldier on..."

Wonderful! I welcome you to debate this issue with me since you have such wonderful logic skills. Or, is your "logic" to launch personal attacks because you dont HAVE the skills to debate the topic???

MEOW! HISSSSSSSSSSSSS!

That is an insult to the reading, reasoning and logic skills of smart ten-year-olds.

Still waiting.. are you going to contribute to this discussion on cloning?

You're preaching to the choir. The congregation isn't listening. (Stupid analogy, you get what I mean though ;))

I think we all can tell the "discussion" was halted long ago. I need to unsubscribe to this thread...

I'll try - this seems to be your main point:

Your other points, simply stated:

2 - genetic modifications are dangerous to the human population

3 - genetic modifications make no sense from a fiscal standpoint

So there's three points: labeling, danger, cost.

So far, you've supported these points entirely through quotations that are not contextually relevant (see: Seattle paper quotation) or via biased sources (see: PACs with hip names like "PEOPLE FIGHTING CANCER.org").

Let's go through these points, piece-by-piece:

1 - Labeling

I've already put into dispute your theory that labeling reduces "choice" - you show a fundamental misunderstanding of 'markets' if you really believe this. You have a choice, as a consumer, to use only meat that is labeled as non-modified, and if consumer action forces this labeling, it will occur. Furthermore, your 'choices' are not limited or taken away in this scenario - you have the same number. You may argue that you're not able to make an informed choice, but this is a lazy and philosophically weak argument.

In actuality, the labeling issues you've described instead foist the responsibility onto the shoulders of the consumer. This is a go-nowhere debate, as well - personally, I believe consumer responsibility is at an all-time low, and I would embrace anything that requires people to take action to become more informed. I do not feel it is the government's job to regulate this - the market will self-correct. You obviously disagree. There's not much more to it than that, so we can move on.

2 - Safety

We're now well over a decade into genetically-modified milk, tomatoes, and other cash crops - and corn has been hybridized in this fashion for somewhat longer. There are exactly zero epidemiological studies linking any diseases to these modifications.

Also, there is little to support your theories on rBGH - although I'm not a particular fan myself, most of the 'scary' parts of the rBGH process are more bark than bite. Increases in IGF-1 are about 3.5x normal (source), which is the 'vast increase' often quoted in pro-organic literature. The problem here is that the body naturally produces ample amounts of IGF-1 in humans, and that uptake of the IGF-1 molecule is not strong.

So there are two issues here: first, while there is a considerable increase in the Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 in milk (which is, by the way, identical to human IGF-1), it pales in comparison to the amount you would normally produce (less than 1% increase in serum quantity (source: NIH) and second, the IGF isn't even necessarily going into the blood.

The second needs further exploration, though. In reality, we don't know the effects of IGF-1 on intestinal tissue or the stomach - again, I understand your desire to know conclusively before ingesting, but there is simply no evidence either way, except the circumstantial lack of epidemiological evidence of disease. Also, even if uptake were significant, IGF-1 is NOT necessarily a problem - in fact, IGF-1 is being prescribed as we speak to older people, to help offset osteoporosis, muscle atrophy, and other issues of aging (IGF-1 production drops as you age).

High levels of IGF-1 are related to an increase in colon cancer, yes - but not at the 1% higher level. All of your links are fine and dandy, but they lack context - with that context (the increase is not significant in the BLOOD), you're swimming upstream.

3 - Fiscal

Again, you misunderstand markets - the market for high-grade beef (think Kobe, or prime-cut high-grade steak) could be radically altered by weeding out weaker lines . . . this is exactly how corn hybridization has worked for about 100 years. This simply makes the process viable for a species that has to actually, y'know, sexually reproduce.

Is it cheap now? Of course not - but DVD players once cost over $1000. If it doesn't make fiscal sense, it won't be used - period. Markets self-correct.

Yes, it costs $15,000 for ViaGen to clone your steer . . . then you use it to stud dozens of animals per year, and recoup the cost and more. The yield is higher, the quality is better, and the cash will increase. Simple, really.

Here's a good summation of counterpoints to cost arguments.

Also, here's the entire FDA report, which includes full disclosure of good and bad. I invite you to pore over this, and let me know which primary sources you can find to support your specious claims - and no, I won't accept pro-organic organizations, or even sponsored research from a School of Public Health. You've clearly never worked with scientific research in the past, and you're cherry-picking . . . it's intellectually dishonest.

KSig_RC rocks my socks.

I apologize if I haven't read carefully enough, but what is dangerous about the cloned mean?

What kind of genetic modificiation would be dangerous considering that we eat so many different species already and natural genetic variety is present in non-cloned animals?

My main concerns about food safety have to do with food borne pathogens. I'm somewhat less concerned with the healthfulness of my diet, but that's because I expect those effects to be kind of slow, rather than something I'm going to experience based on eating something one time.

What could be introduced into clone meats that wouldn't be even more likely to be present in bred meat, in terms of viruses, mad cow, etc?

What changes could be introduced into clones meat that wouldn't also be able to be introduced through breeding?

All of the food will mutate cause you and your children to grow funky appendages. You will all contract Mad Cow, or the appropriate prion based disease of the cloned animal you consume. (Mad Cow isn't viral, at least as far as anyone can tell. )


Clearly you and everyone you love will die.

Uh...nothing. That's the stupid part-people hear clone and start freaking out thinking they'll contract some funky disease. While we're on the subject, (correct me if I'm wrong AKA_Monet) a clone is not an exact genetic copy. The cloning process only uses the nuclear DNA, not the mitochondric DNA.
Nothing will happen to you if you eat cloned meat, and as that's not actually the issue at this time, there's no reason to go 'ZOMG FDA sucks I won't be their little bitch!'
If you're going to get anything, as Drolefille said sarcastically, it'll be BSE (Mad Cow) or salmonella, something like that. Now, if they start cloning unhealthy animals (which they won't, completely non-profitable), then you'd have reason to worry.
If you're (in general, not you specifically) so concerned about where your food comes from and what has happened to it in the process of delivering it to your grocery store, buy a farm, slaughter your own animals, get your own dairy products and grow your own produce. It's the only way to be 100% safe, since you'll know what was involved every step of the way.

Thanks for answering. That's kind of what I thought.

I realize there are better place to find this information than GreekChat, but what is the biology of Mad Cow?

I really thought it was viral. I don't know why.

I know that it ends up making holes in brain tissue and that prions, I think, are involved, but what kind of pathogen is it?

AFAIK...Mad Cow happens when cows are fed beef.

In short - cow cannibalism.

Why in the world are you still waiting? What part of "I would have to take your posts seriously in order to try and 'retort your facts'" was too complicated for you to understand?

Seriously. But just wait. He "retorted" her "facts," so according to what seems to pass for logic, he must be wrong. There'll be a five gazzillion-word post full of links to "sources" telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is inevitable.

From wiki
That's really rather dense, and sorry, but I'm not sure I can actually simplify it.
But yeah, they get it when they're fed cow nervous tissue. Sheep get a similar disease.




I can't even read those posts.

Can you imagine doing discovery with her? :( She'd bury you in take-out menus.

ROTFL! That's the best laugh I've had all day, as well as the most horrifying thought I've had all day. A 2-fer!