FDA poised to OK food from cloned animals
 

Scientists say meat, milk just as safe as from conventional livestock
AP Wire
Updated: 51 minutes agoWASHINGTON - Federal scientists have concluded there is no difference between food from cloned animals and food from conventional livestock, setting the stage for the government to declare Thursday that cloned animals are safe for the human food supply.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372490/

Right, well that article is a load of horseshit. 'People are uncomfortable'. Then don't tell them dumbasses. There is no difference. Holy shit.

GOOD THING BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST ABOUT TO RUN OUT OF COWS.

Seriously, WTF.

as a vegetarian, just not worried 'bout it

Well, plants are cloned, too...
 

Agriculture has been using cloned plants--or genetically modified plants for at least 15 years. And most major grocery chains as well as canned vegetables carry GMO foods. Moreover, I wouldn't trust the packaging on Organic as far as I could throw it... And it is the USDA, not the FDA that gives that rating system... The FDA just approves the use of foodstuffs for human consumption.

And what are you all calling cloned animals? If you are talking "Dolly the Sheep" cloned animal, then that is cloning. But if you are talking about that "Sweet Pork" that has a genetically altered insulin pathway gene, which causes the muscle to taste sweeter, that happened naturally by breeding...

How many different cows do we have? Or pigs? Goats, chickens or turkeys? What about fish?

Although I am a vegetarian, I am one because of my personal decision. Not because I think the meat industry needs improvement, but because I am an informed adult who made a decision.

The worst issue with cloned animals are they get too sick with cancers or infection. Meat prices will skyrocket just to come from a cloned animal.

I wonder if folks would consider Exotic Meats as an alternative--knowing that the risks have not been checked by ANY Federal Agency... So if you eat rattlesnake, there may still be venom in is... So if you die, then tough... If you drink raw milk, you can get both E. coli or Lactobacillus poisoning... So, if you die, well, you've been informed...

A lot of steer died in California this past summer. That put a dent into the market. That is why they are probably opting for cloned animals. 1 steer cost ~$3000 to keep alive per year. And dairy cows cost more...

GMO's, the possibility of cloned animals in our food suppy, viruses added to deli meats, bovine hormones, illegal pesticides sprayed on fruit brought in from South America and Mexico is why we should all buy stock in Whole Foods Markets.

Even though I'm not vegetarian, the thought of eating cloned meat sounds gross and very soylent green'esque. :eek:

What is really disturbing is that the meat will not be labeled as coming from a cloned animal or from a descendent of a cloned animal. That takes away our choice, much in the same way as the FDA's recent approval of adding viruses to lunch meat without labeling.

The Consumer Federation of America has been against the FDA's plan to allow cloned meat for quite a while. Ms. Foreman makes some very good arguments about allowing cloned meat in our food supply.

Here is a news release I received back in October on the subject:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Carol Tucker Foreman
October 17, 2006
Phone: 202-441-4510
CFA’S CAROL TUCKER FOREMAN ON FDA’S INTENTION TO
FOIST MEAT AND MILK FROM CLONED ANIMALS ON
UNWILLING PUBLIC

The Food and Drug Administration is, once again, flirting with inflicting meat and milk from cloned animals on the consuming public despite the fact that almost two-thirds of Americans oppose the technology and don’t want to eat cloned milk and meat. By not requiring that cloned milk and meat be labeled, the U.S. Government is permitting these ethically questionable products to be foisted on a reluctant public through secrecy and stealth. There will be no freedom to choose in the cloned milk and meat marketplace.

Independent polls taken over several years, including one by the Gallup organization and the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology show over 60 percent of Americans oppose animal cloning and would not purchase cloned meat and milk even if the government says they are safe.

Three times in the last four years the FDA has stated it has evidence that the cloned milk and meat are safe and will soon be on the market. The FDA has, however, never made its full risk assessment or scientific studies available to the public nor provided an opportunity to comment.

Claims that cloning is safe for animals are questionable. Clone pregnancies, even those in the studies FDA cites to support cloning, often end in miscarriage and many of the animals are deformed or do not survive to maturity. FDA has acknowledged that there
are more negative outcomes of pregnancy than in other forms of assisted reproduction but says they are similar in nature to problems that arise in non-cloned animals. In other words, it is okay to increase the number of animals that suffer as long as they don’t suffer in new ways.

A flood of milk from highly productive cloned cows is not good for the taxpayers. Americans have a milk surplus that has cost taxpayers over $5 billion in the last five years. Surplus milk is turned into high fat products that then go to school children adding fat and cholesterol to their diets.

Page 2
There is, in short, no public value from a technology that raises serious concerns regarding cruelty to animals and the nasty underlying threat that this is the first step down
the slippery slope to human cloning.
# # # # #
Consumer Federation of America is a non-profit association of 300 consumer groups, representing more
than 50 million Americans. It was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research,
education and advocacy. The Food Policy Institute at CFA works to promote a safer, healthier and more affordable food supply.

I hate this argument - it doesn't actually "remove choice" in any form at all, and to claim this is purely sensationalism.

The real issue is how much responsibility should be placed on the consumer, or on the company/labeling - it certainly appears that this firmly places all responsibility on the consumer, which is NOT the same as limiting choice. Be upset because the government is kowtowing to corporate concerns to save a buck, but don't make up nonsense 'choice' issues.

It's like the walrus complaining about the stolen bucket . . .

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j9.../buckethd3.jpg

I was under the impression that not everything at Whole Foods was organic.

The FDA has found no differences in meat from cloned vs non-cloned food animals (except sheep, sheep aren't approved yet). Yeah, the FDA isn't perfect but they're a pretty gun-shy organization. If there's a hint of increased negative effects they tend to pull it.

Seems like those who don't want cloned meat or milk from cloned cows will have the option of buying "clone-free" or something similar. Ben & Jerry's is already looking into labeling.

It's not, but even the stuff that isn't tends to be all-natural or more environmentally conscious than products in a regular supermarket.

Can someone explain why cloning would be a more cost effective way of production then breeding?? It's not like in the cartoons where you put a full grown cow in the cloning machine and another full grown cow comes out, ready for slaughter. You still have to raise the thing from a baby calf, so what's the difference if that calf is cloned or if Bessie got her freak on with the steer next door? Why not let Bessie have her fun?

So you don't believe in food labeling? You "trust" the FDA to decide what's safe and what isn't? Remember, the FDA said Vioxx was safe.

And.. regarding Whole Foods.. nobody said everything was organic.. however.. you are able to CHOOSE organic foods. They are clearly labeled.

Vioxx is safe if you don't take ever increasing doses to manage your pain. THEN it causes heart attacks.

You can choose to eat "clone free" foods or whatever the final phrasing is. So far that includes Ben and Jerry's. Of course, that won't be a legal phrase either (much like "free-range") so good luck.


I have no idea why they want to sell cloned meat either Alphafrog. I'm missing something

So you don't think the FDA gives into pressure from the major drug companies?

http://www.organicconsumers.org/poli...rrupt21705.cfm

If that is the case, why was it taken off the market? Would be interested in reading something that backs up your statement.

From what I've read-- there were problems even during clinical trials.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6627

Organicconsumers.org does not appear to be an unbiased source. And the FDA's procedures for food vs. drugs are different. Drugs will always have negative side effects. It's what they do. Food should not.

Basically every painkiller increases the chance of death in people with heart problems. High doses even more so. I don't have the newspaper article I was reading about how the official dosages did not have as significant side effects as the increased dosages doctors prescribed. They fell into the trap of thinking it was "safe" It's never safe. PR killed Vioxx more than anything else.

/Yeah I said "safe" earlier, but it's a relative scale thing.

If studies show no difference in cloned vs. non-cloned meat than the only thing different is your perception of it.

".org" generally = biased

Si.

Yes, the site is a biased site.. but the page sums up my feelings on the matter and does provide legitimate sources for its position. Further, Dr. David Graham, the associate Director for Science and Medicine in FDA's Office of Drug Safety has lambasted his own agency for the Vioxx mess and other drug-safety regulation failures. You might want to read this interiew in its entirety. Meantime.. here's one quote from that interview:

"On the safety side, I think that the American public can't be very confident. They can have some confidence because it turns out that most drugs are remarkably safe. But, when there are unsafe drugs, the FDA is very likely to err on the side of industry. Rarely will they keep a drug from being marketed or pull a drug off the market. A lot of this has to do with the standards that the FDA uses for safety. When they look at efficacy, they assume that the drug doesn't work and the company has to prove that the drug does work. When they look at safety it's entirely the opposite. The FDA assumes the drug is safe and now it's up to the company to prove that the drug isn't safe. Well, that's a no-brainer. What company on earth is going to try to prove that the drug isn't safe? There's no incentive for the companies to do things right. The clinical trials that are done are too small, and as a result it's very unusual to find a serious safety problem in these clinical trials. Safety flaws are discovered after the drug gets on the market."
http://www.newstarget.com/011401.html

I'm afraid you're mistaken regarding pain killers. Aspirin is a pain killer and actually is recommended for people as a PREVENTATIVE for heart problems.
http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4456

You also are mistaken regarding the safety of normal doses of Vioxx. In fact, it has been found to cause heart attacks even in low doses:

and.. during Senate Testimony-- Dr. Graham said this:

"In March of 2004, another epidemiologic study reported that both high-dose and low-dose Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks compared to Vioxx's leading competitor, Celebrex. Our study, first reported in late August of this year found that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack and sudden death by 3.7 fold for high-dose and 1.5 fold for low-dose, compared to Celebrex."

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/c...iew/000160/61/


PR didn't kill Vioxx... Vioxx killed people... and studies have now proved it.

So.. my question is.. how can we believe an agency which as made such egregious mistakes regarding our safety?

I agree! I dont get the wanting to sell cloned meat deal. I agree that it would seem more expensive to produce than breeding. I guess I just dont understand why they think it's necessary to do that.

As far as prescription drugs go that is so true! There are probably a few dangerous ones that have slipped through the cracks over the years but for the most part I believe they are safe (if used as directed) when they come out. There is no such thing as a completely safe drug, not even something as seemingly simple and common as Tylenol. It's the consumer/patient that neglects to follow dosing instructions and/or health care providers that neglect to look at the list of medications the patient is currently taking before putting them on the latest drug (which can cause adverse reactions such as Viagra and hypertension medications for example) AND neglecting to do a complete history and physical to rule out certain medical conditions that would make the medication contraindicated for that patient. But having said that a list of medications and medical history at least from the subjective information end are only as good as what the patient tells you.

As far as Vioxx being pulled.....most drugs tend to be pulled when law suits are filed against them regardless of why the law suits are filed.

Ibuprofen, naproxen, and other pain killers show similar issues. Aspirin is another matter, yes.

Yes and from a similar site, ibuprofen increased the risk by 1.x and 2.2 in the same situations. I'm not feeling like googling again though so we can drop the drug discussion. All drugs have side effects, take them or leave them.

This has nothing to do with cloned food

Found some of the "why"

WSJ article reprinted here:Cloned meat
Basically they're saying that they (the FDA) knows that currently it isn't cost effective but that's not their business. And that most likely cloned animals would be bred, not served, and we'd be eating the offspring. And in the end it's not much different than the artificial insemination that is already done.

Aspirin is a pain killer and yes it can help prevent damaging effects during a heart attack and prevent blood clots (in small amounts) but even aspirin is not for everyone. DId you bother to read the rest of that article after the first paragraph? Let me state it for you then.


"You should not start aspirin therapy without first consulting your physician. The risks and benefits of aspirin therapy vary for each person.........After you call 9-1-1, the 9-1-1 operator may recommend that you take an aspirin. He or she can make sure that you don't have an allergy to aspirin or a condition that makes using it too risky. If the 9-1-1 operator doesn't talk to you about taking an aspirin, the emergency medical technicians or the physician in the Emergency Department will give you an aspirin if it's right for you.......Taking aspirin isn't advised during a stroke, because not all strokes are caused by blood clots. Most strokes are caused by clots, but some are caused by ruptured blood vessels. Taking aspirin could potentially make these bleeding strokes more severe."

While aspirin does have good attributes as stated above it is not for everyone because it's not safe for everyone.

Aspirin isn't a pain killer, it's a blood thinner.

When I started reading this thread, I was thinking something similar. Does anyone even use aspirin as a pain killer anymore? Sure, people will say that they took an aspirin- but is it used like "kleenex" is- people just call it that? I don't think I know anyone who still takes it for headaches, etc. I know a lot of people who have heart related problems who take it, because, as you said, it's a blood thinner.

Sorry to further contribute to the hijack.

This is irrelevent to the conversation. I never stated that aspirin didn't have side effects... I know aspirin does. I was using aspirin as an example to Drole as to pain killers that don't damage the heart. She said all pain killers do. She was incorrect.

Egg-zackly. This is why I despise first aid courses and stupid Bayer commercials. Sometimes good intentions can make a situation a lot worse. For instance, I'm allergic to aspirin. One dose could annihilate me.
Who's using ASA as a painkiller these days anyway?
Also naproxen shouldn't be on the market period. That stuff will tear up anyone's stomach.

Blood thinner that relieves pain by reducing swelling (i think that's how it works) /= pain killer that causes the brain to numb pain

Regardless, if I say "the majority" of painkillers have heart damaging side effects (particularly in heart patients) instead of all, my point stands.

Can you not READ?? Aspirin is NOT a pain killer. Therefore, your entire post above = http://www.vwenthusiast.com/yabbse/a...omer-drool.gif

Tee hee

Aspirin is indeed a pain killer. How it kills pain is not the question. Drole made the statement that all pain killers are hazardous to the heart. Aspirin is a pain killer because.. it kills pain.

If you need proof, here are some links:
Aspirin is used to relieve mild to moderate pain; reduce fever, redness, and swelling; and to help prevent blood from clotting.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/d...r/a682878.html

Aspirin is used to reduce pain, inflammation, and fever.
http://www.drugs.com/aspirin.html

"Pain killer chart"
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/medi...comparison.htm

If you would like more sources, I'm happy to quote them for you.

If you said "Cox 2 inhibitors" can have heart damaging effects.. that would be accurate.

But, I think we are side-tracking. The question is... can we trust the FDA's allegation that cloning is a safe source of food when it has been so wrong in the past?

Well I don't know...have you been damaged by drinking milk produced with Bovine Growth Hormone? Ever taken premarin?

Also, what would be wrong with the cloned meat exactly? Explain how it would not be safe.

Glad you brought that up. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone is another debacle of the FDA. Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports has warned about potential hazards of rbGH.

It's also banned in Europe and Canada.


http://www.consumersunion.org/food/98ny699.htm

I try to drink only organic milk because there is much question over the safety of rbGH. And no, I've never taken Premarin. Your point?

Your concern seems to be using animals unnaturally to produce products for humans.
rBGH is not unsafe, I have a friend who worked with a dairy herd. It doesn't show up in the milk and it doesn't affect the cow other than to produce more milk.
Premarin is another example of using animals unnaturally for a product. The farms are shut down now, but mares were bred over and over and left without water to collect hormones in their urine which was then put into a drug for HRT. Not natural. FDA approved that though.
It's not exactly unknown that the FDA is cahoots with the meat industry in this country. They're in each other's pockets. My suggestion to you is to start a farm so you know exactly where your food is coming from.

EDIT: just read your link. I see your concern, however, I think the real problem is that the FDA isn't prepared to put more money into researching products. That study was also performed in 1990. If there were any problems with rBGH I believe they would have emerged by now. Do you have any other sources that might indicate that? I'm interested.

The thread really should have just stopped after this post.

Once again, .org = biased.

Yeah, I seem to remember another organic foods thread that turned into a trainwreck, with people going off on tangents. I'm not sure of the exact thread though.