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.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

Whoa, first time pregnant mammals often get dystocia. As well as rectal prolapse--both sexes. There is no proof of all the pathologies you listed that are outside the realm that normally happens with piss poor animal husbandry...

We are ONLY DISCUSSING FDA and USDA approved farms and facilities that do these kinds of things. Not some random "Joe Farmer" that sleeps with his cows...

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.

The point is cloned meat in our food supply is a DONE DEAL. There ain't shit you or I can do about it. Your only option is to NOT EAT FOOD AND STARVE, PERIOD.

Why do you think the FDA did not put this concept up for public debate? Archer Midland and ConAgra has a billion more dollars than you and I put together. For every $1 they've got a Billion more...

So the first folks affected by this are the poor and disenfranchised. I.E. spelled that they do not have a Whole Foods (Whole Wallet) in the ghetto and the one off Park Cities Inwood Road in Dallas, TX does NOT count.

So what options do folks really have besides starvation?

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.

That's bullisht and you know it. No sane public health expert would agree to that concept.

That concept is waaay outside of evolution that it fails to follow rigorous scientific examination and thought. There is NO correlation that autism is directly caused by "frankenfood" consumption. And Autism as a disease is caused during development, at best it caused by poor maternal health than food consumption. And recently scientists id'ed several genes involved in autism that have to do with visual perception and similar pathways in the dopamine neurotransmitter system... The only way that dopamine metabolism can be affected is if the mother is an illegal substance abuser... Eating food does NOT make a mother a substance abuser.

What you are doing is distortion... Grossly.

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."




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?



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.

Okey first, you are misrepresenting and distorting the facts. Insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1) is made by all of us. Without it, we die. It is the major hormone that responds to our intake of food, like insulin.

Since all milk is required to be HOMOGENIZED and PASTEURIZED and before human consumption, then proteins are degraded. Meaning a salt solution is added to raw milk, to precipitate all the proteins out of it. Then the precipitate is used to generate: cheese, butter, cottage cheese, etc. Then pasteurization "bakes" the milk that follows a dialysis step to have a purified fraction of material--which then gets filtered. Just like our wine and beer goes through this process, so does our milk. It has been this way for over 50 years. Sometimes the process in inefficient and sometimes, there are failures. But there is lack of inspectors for these facilities or maybe there are payoffs. I am not all into conspiracy anymore.

Injecting animals with rbGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone) increases many things along the signalling cascade leading to the increased net production IGF-1 . If you used Humilin to regulated your diabetes, you are injecting recominant human Insulin that is made either in cells or animals... Same concept.

Whether that enhances the health the steer species or worsens it is irrelevant to me. Because it is a done deal. There is nothing I could do to change it. It happens. Waring or protecting yourself from these kinds of genetic modifications has happenend and is going to continue to happen.

Acromegaly/gigantism in humans is caused by mutations in GH. Not by food consumption. Eating foods that have GH, which is raw meat products is risky not only for infectious disease's sake but plain stupid. References PubMed.

Are you quoting me references over 17 years old? Did they microarray those data?

Anything can cause cancer in rodents if they live too long. I study aging in laboratory rodents. It is not because of their food consumption why they get heptomegaly and splenomegaly. It is because they are inbred and inbreeding generally causes mutations. Yes, inbreding is roughly the same as cloning, but a rodent's birthrate is much faster than a cow's, anyday, anytime. The estrus cycle of rodent is ~14 days. The estrus cycle of a cow without injections are ~once per year or less. With injections, you can boost it up ~2-3. And at best you are getting only 2 calves.

With clones you will be increase maturation and calf production by 10-fold.

Just because apoptosis--programmed cell death--does not occur does not always constitute a tumorigenesis. Mutations in the Bcl-1/2, Bax, Bid, etc. Even knockouts in the caspase pathways did not increase tumorigenesis. The only thing that seems to change tumorigenesis are deletions in the cell cycle--i.e. the cyclins and p53, DNA damage by oxidation and loss of DNA repair (Lawrence Loeb et al. throughout).

Your capability to understand basic tenets of molecular biotechnology is poor. And if you are in a Ph.D. program, then you may need to reconsider and do something more commensurate of your abilities.

Dr. AKA_Monet
University of Washington
UT Southwestern Medical Center
University of California, San Diego
San Diego State University
The Scripps Research Institute

[jubilance1922]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Your capability to understand basic tenets of molecular biotechnology is poor. And if you are in a Ph.D. program, then you may need to reconsider and do something more commensurate of your abilities.

Dr. AKA_Monet
University of Washington
UT Southwestern Medical Center
University of California, San Diego
San Diego State University
The Scripps Research Institute

^^^^I wanna be like her when I grow up.

*cue blueangel coming in and acting like a complete idiot, and then reporting me because I called her an idiot.*

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Whoa, first time pregnant mammals often get dystocia. As well as rectal prolapse--both sexes. There is no proof of all the pathologies you listed that are outside the realm that normally happens with piss poor animal husbandry...

We are ONLY DISCUSSING FDA and USDA approved farms and facilities that do these kinds of things. Not some random "Joe Farmer" that sleeps with his cows...

This study shows otherwise:

“64% of cattle, 40% of sheep, and 93% of mice exhibit some form of abnormality. A large percentage ofthese animals die during gestation or shortly after birth…In cattle [abnormalities] include large offspringsyndrome, diabetes, pulmonary hypertension, dilated cardiomyopathy, internal hemorrhaging umbilicalartery, viral infection, dystocia, kidney problems, leg malformations, pneumonia, heart defects, liverfibrosis, osteoporosis, joint defects, anemia, and placental abnormalities..."

Jorge Piedrahita, et.al., "Somatic Cell Cloning: The Ultimate Form of Nuclear Reprogramming?," J. Am. Soc. Nephrol 15:1140-1144, 2004.

Other studies include:
Merritt McKinney, "Flawed genetic Omarking" seen in cloned animals," Reuters Health May 29, 2001

"Aberrant methylation of donor genome in cloned bovine embryos," Nature Genetics 2001;28:173-177

The point is cloned meat in our food supply is a DONE DEAL. There ain't shit you or I can do about it. Your only option is to NOT EAT FOOD AND STARVE, PERIOD.

Why do you think the FDA did not put this concept up for public debate? Archer Midland and ConAgra has a billion more dollars than you and I put together. For every $1 they've got a Billion more...

Actually, you are incorrect. The FDA will be accepting public comments on the three documents outlining guidelines for the introduction of animal clones into our food chain until April 2.

That's bullisht and you know it. No sane public health expert would agree to that concept.

That concept is waaay outside of evolution that it fails to follow rigorous scientific examination and thought. There is NO correlation that autism is directly caused by "frankenfood" consumption. And Autism as a disease is caused during development, at best it caused by poor maternal health than food consumption. And recently scientists id'ed several genes involved in autism that have to do with visual perception and similar pathways in the dopamine neurotransmitter system... The only way that dopamine metabolism can be affected is if the mother is an illegal substance abuser... Eating food does NOT make a mother a substance abuser.

I never said there was correlation between autism and "frankenfood" consumption. I said that with the amount of "frankenfood" in our food supply, there is no way to track it, and no way to tell how safe or how dangerous our food supply is.

We simply do not know.. and that is the point. The FDA allows all of this into our food supply without knowing what the long term effects are. Right now, there is a sharp increase in autism. Why? Are you trying to say that all mothers of autistic children are illegal substance abusers? If not, then what is causing this sharp increase? Obviously something has changed over the last decade or so.

Now the FDA wants to introduce yet another unknown in to our food supply.. cloned meat. Even the FDA will no conclusively say it is safe. They will only qualify it by saying that "it appears to be safe." Again, we are being made to be guinea pigs.

Okey first, you are misrepresenting and distorting the facts. Insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1) is made by all of us. Without it, we die. It is the major hormone that responds to our intake of food, like insulin.

Since all milk is required to be HOMOGENIZED and PASTEURIZED and before human consumption, then proteins are degraded. Meaning a salt solution is added to raw milk, to precipitate all the proteins out of it. Then the precipitate is used to generate: cheese, butter, cottage cheese, etc. Then pasteurization "bakes" the milk that follows a dialysis step to have a purified fraction of material--which then gets filtered. Just like our wine and beer goes through this process, so does our milk. It has been this way for over 50 years. Sometimes the process in inefficient and sometimes, there are failures. But there is lack of inspectors for these facilities or maybe there are payoffs. I am not all into conspiracy anymore.

If you would READ my posts before "reacting".. you would find that the source was not mine. I was pointing out to KC RC that his source actually refuted what he was trying to say when you read the entire article and didn't take it out of context.

Your capability to understand basic tenets of molecular biotechnology is poor. And if you are in a Ph.D. program, then you may need to reconsider and do something more commensurate of your abilities.

Whenever you get frustrated in a debate, you resort to personal attacks. Why is that?

Now, I have some questions for you, since you're such a proponent to cloning:

1. What is the success rate of somatic cloning of embryos to full term?

2. What is the frequency of late fetal loss??

3. Do you deny LOS is a problem in a statisticaly greater amount among cloned animals that DO survive, than their natural birth counterparts?

4. Getting back to economics.. if cloning a cow costs between $15,000 and $20,000... how many clones will there be? What about the dangers of inbreeding?

5. Why do cloned animals have a shorter lifespan than their natural birth counterparts? Why do so many have compromised immune systems? Higher incidence of tumor growth?

6. What is the incidence of abnormalities in successfully cloned animals?

7. What proof do you have that eating a cloned animal is safe, when the FDA can only say the meat of a cloned animal "appears" to be safe?

[RU OX Alum]

i support anything that makes steak more plentiful

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

i support anything that makes steak more plentiful

High Five!

[UGAalum94]

Ummmm, large offspring syndrome and leg malformations, yum.

Blueangle, I see the examples that you listed as unprofitable for breeders and unlikely to successfully produce more meat, but is there anything that you've come across that indicates that the animals more be dangerous to eat?

Like, a six legged chicken would be pretty gross, but do you think the extra drumsticks be likely to be different in a way that was harmful? I don't see the connection between the genes of an animal that I digest and break down into fuel and other longterm human health issues.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Ummmm, large offspring syndrome and leg malformations, yum.

Blueangle, I see the examples that you listed as unprofitable for breeders and unlikely to successfully produce more meat, but is there anything that you've come across that indicates that the animals more be dangerous to eat?

Like, a six legged chicken would be pretty gross, but do you think the extra drumsticks be likely to be different in a way that was harmful? I don't see the connection between the genes of an animal that I digest and break down into fuel and other longterm human health issues.

Well, with the groundbreaking research into genetics and molecular biology I'm sure we'll be able to discover which animals are more likely to produce harmful carcinogens. We'll clone those animals and it'll be a game of Russian Roulette with your stomach.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Well, with the groundbreaking research into genetics and molecular biology I'm sure we'll be able to discover which animals are more likely to produce harmful carcinogens. We'll clone those animals and it'll be a game of Russian Roulette with your stomach.

Heh, right, if we knew what health traits went with what genes and could clone for them, of course, we'd choose more healthful traits.

Unless the genetic mutations are going to change things at the cellular and molecular level, in a way that can be ingested and transfered to the consumer of that animal's flesh, which it doesn't seem to me like cloning on it's own will do, bring the clones to Lonehorn and Outback!

[AGDee]

I'm hoping they can produce a chicken with more drumsticks and thighs so KFC wouldn't keep running out of them... (bad experience at KFC tonight)

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'm hoping they can produce a chicken with more drumsticks and thighs so KFC wouldn't keep running out of them... (bad experience at KFC tonight)

Funny, we never ran out of thighs when I worked there. It was always the breasts and drumsticks Skip the body parts and go with the strips, I say
Oh yeah, speaking of genetics and cloning, KFC breeds chickens without beaks and excessive body parts we can't use. They also don't have feathers. It makes it easier for them to carve em up. We fed em with tubes in the back room at my KFC.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Oh yeah, speaking of genetics and cloning, KFC breeds chickens without beaks and excessive body parts we can't use. They also don't have feathers. It makes it easier for them to carve em up. We fed em with tubes in the back room at my KFC.

WHAT?

For a moment I thought you were serious.

But I'll be honest, breeding/cloning them without beaks would seem more humane that de-beaking them, if you ask me.

And featherless would be better than the recent accident that some company got fined for in which a bunch of turkeys went into the scalding vat fully conscious.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Funny, we never ran out of thighs when I worked there. It was always the breasts and drumsticks Skip the body parts and go with the strips, I say
Oh yeah, speaking of genetics and cloning, KFC breeds chickens without beaks and excessive body parts we can't use. They also don't have feathers. It makes it easier for them to carve em up. We fed em with tubes in the back room at my KFC.

They have this 9 piece leg and thigh deal going on leading to no legs or thighs being available. However, they were also out of pot pies and chicken strips. There were a lot of ticked off people at KFC tonight!