FDA poised to OK food from cloned animals

[blueangel]

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

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

[Drolefille]

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.

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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

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

[Drolefille]

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.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Organicconsumers.org does not appear to be an unbiased source.

".org" generally = biased

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

".org" generally = biased

Si.

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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?

[Drolefille]

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

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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

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.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

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

[tunatartare]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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

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.

[AlphaFrog]

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?

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

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 there are several reasons why "cloning" is more cost effective of some kinds of production for foods:

Let's take your example of a cow. Calves take too long to wean. Unless you want veal, you MUST leave the calf with the mother.

As I understand it, it takes ~200+ days to have a calf or 10-11 months depend on size. Some strains of bovine do not breed as sucessfully as mixed breed.

Most mixed breed do not produce enough milk or quality of meat--i.e. too tough, etc.

Breeding takes too long. Sometime the stud doesn't impregnate the females. Sometimes he doesn't know where to put it. So, do you want to wait for production? Knowing the U.S. population's desire for a good steak or tenderloin?

Well, with molecular genetics the scientists, vets, physicians, big pharma, corporations, just move evolution a little faster than normal time...

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

So there are several reasons why "cloning" is more cost effective of some kinds of production for foods:

Let's take your example of a cow. Calves take too long to wean. Unless you want veal, you MUST leave the calf with the mother.

As I understand it, it takes ~200+ days to have a calf or 10-11 months depend on size. Some strains of bovine do not breed as sucessfully as mixed breed.

Most mixed breed do not produce enough milk or quality of meat--i.e. too tough, etc.

Breeding takes too long. Sometime the stud doesn't impregnate the females. Sometimes he doesn't know where to put it. So, do you want to wait for production? Knowing the U.S. population's desire for a good steak or tenderloin?

Well, with molecular genetics the scientists, vets, physicians, big pharma, corporations, just move evolution a little faster than normal time...

Um, so you know, clones are born just like normal calves and must grow up, get weaned, etc. They don't spring fully grown from a petri dish.