FDA poised to OK food from cloned animals

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

You forgot:

4 - ethical issues.. as in the risks to the animals themselves. There is a high failure rate with clone embryos. In addition, cloning causes oversized fetuses, neonatal respiratory failure, and heart disease. Many of the animals cloned are severely deformed.. monsterously overweight, filled with fluids, with all kinds of abnormalities. The cause of LOS (large offspring syndrome) in cloned animals is still not known.

Further... it is not only the cloned animals that suffer.. so do those that are impregnated with the clone. Cattle and sheep carrying clones are at risk for developing dystocia.

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.

I think it is you who does not understand marketing. If you did, you would know that if food from clones is determined "indistinguishable" (and that, ironically is determined by the FDA itself, then the FDA doesn't have the authority to require labels.

Here's another point to ponder:
How is the public going to be able to determine whether a steak ordered at a restaurant is cloned or not? The choice of whether to eat meat at a restaurant will be taken away for those who choose not to eat cloned meat, or the cloned meat of progeny.

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.

The problem is.. we just don't know. There is so much alteration in our food supplies, that it is impossible to pin-point the consequences. Yet we know, for example, that autism among children has risen dramatically... a ten-fold increase in the last 20 years.
http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/autism.html

Could all of this unnatural adulteration to our food supply be causing autism? ADHD? Premature puberty? We don't know. There is so much "frankenfood" in the U.S. food supplies, along with pesticides and even illegal pesticides from imported fruit and vegetables, that we just don't know what the effects are.

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.

Actually, you just shot yourself in the foot with that quote. The NEXT quotes say:

A new study published in August shows this to be wrong. IGF-1 by itself in saliva is destroyed by digestion, but IGF-1 in the presence of casein (the principal protein in cows' milk) is not destroyed by the digestive system. Casein has a protective effect on IGF-1, so IGF-1 in cows milk remains intact in the gut of humans who drink rBGH-treated milk. There was reason to believe that this might be true because researchers in 1984 had shown that another growth hormone, Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF), in the presence of casein was not degraded by the digestive system. However, proof had been lacking for IGF-1 until now.
So the saliva argument has been invalidated by scientific experiment. The question then becomes, what are the likely effects of IGF-1 in contact with cells of the human gastrointestinal tract? This is the question the NIH said needed answering back in 1991. Now there are at least three relevant studies.

Some humans suffer from a condition called acromegaly, or gigantism, which is characterized by excessive growth of the head, face, hands, and feet. It is caused by excessive natural production of IGF-1. Importantly, a recent report indicates that people who suffer from acromegaly have an elevated incidence of tumors of the colon.

Two British researchers, D.N. Challacombe and E.E. Wheeler, experimented with IGF-1, exposing human cells taken from the small intestine. They report that IGF-1 induced mitotic activity -- that is to say, IGF-1 promoted cell division. This is an important finding. Cancer is uncontrolled cell division.

As cells divide, at some point they are instructed (by their genes, in combination with hormone signals) to stop dividing or they are instructed to die so that the creation of new cells is matched by the death of cells and no net growth occurs; this is called "programmed cell death." If "programmed cell death" is prevented, then cells don't die at the right time, causing an unnatural increase in cells -- another way to make a tumor. A study published in June by Renato Baserga and others in Cancer Research reveals that IGF-1 promotes the growth of cancer tumors in laboratory animals and in humans by preventing programmed cell death. This is another important finding.

In the same article you quoted, it says:
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late 1993 declared the milk from rBGH-treated cows safe. However, new scientific studies published this summer suggest that milk from rBGH-treated cows may not be as safe for humans as was previously believed."

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.

It will be interesting to see how this is played out. A poll conducted in 2006 by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found two-thirds of American consumers were “uncomfortable” with the idea of cloning animals.

And "in 2006, only 16 percent of respondents voiced a “favorable” impression of livestock cloning, and 44 percent said they were not likely to buy cloned meat, milk or eggs, even if the FDA declared them safe."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16509029.htm

If there is little demand for cloned beef.. then why would the industry pay that amount of money?

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.

I think the quote from the FDA itself tells it all:
"Edible products from normal, healthy clones or their progeny do not appear to pose increased food consumption risks relative to comparable products from conventional animals."

Notice the word "appear." That one little word says it all... the FDA does not say, "do not pose increased food consumption risks".. because the fact is.. it is not known conclusively at this time.

So we are all being used as guinea pigs.