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.