Do clone, don't tell?

Clever, but descriptive title, huh? :stuck_out_tongue:
Anyway, I’m not yet vehemently opposed to the idea of cloned foods. I don’t know enough about it yet. But I would like to know from whence my vittles come.
So how can producers be legaly emcouraged to hide the fact that the cheeseburger I lust after wasn’t grown on a cow? (You know what I mean). Don’t I have the right to choose?

What the difference between a cloned cow and a regular one? Nothing at all.

So why should it matter?

Where do you get these cheeseburgers made with vat grown beef? I didn’t know that was reasonably cost effective yet if possible at all.

I suppose farmers could bring in scientists to clone a prized animal but cloned animals have always been with us. They are called identical twins and although I agree that they are spooky as shit especially when we are talking about the natural human ones, they seem to be rather harmless (unless, like all non-clone animals X 2, they are provoked).

I think we need to acclimate the public to the term “cloning” by changing the identical twin, triplet label to “clones”. The people in question may not like it but, too bad, it is true scientifically and we shouldn’t had the facts to protect people’s feelings.

Bolding by me.
You declared the difference yourself.
If there’s no difference, why the desire to be dishonest? If consumers don’t want your cloned food, don’t sell it to them. Sell it only to those who prefer it.
What’s next, are they going to sue producers who label their foods “not cloned”?
Sound familiar?

I think we need to acclimate the public to cloning by simply being honest. When the public see’s some advantage to themselves, they’ll like get right on the bandwagon.
You think?
What’s this “vat grown beef”? Something like that famous KFC non-chicken of myth?

I think all non-cloned beef should be legally required to mention on the label:


Even though there’s no difference from cloned beef, I would still feel more comfortable knowing that beef made from sex is clearly labeled as such. This shouldn’t cause too much unnecessary confusion for the average consumer. I feel confident that people will purchase zygote germ beef with just as much confidence as they purchase irradiated foods today.

Hell yes! I’d go for that.
Notice that you’re not disagreeing with me.
But, lookee here.

Shouldn’t have mentioned that one, huh.

The answer is that since there is absolutely no difference in food quality or safety between cloned and sexually conceived animal products, labeling them as such would only be caving in to alarmist impulses. Refusing to eat beef from cloned cows makes about as much sense as refusing to eat beef from brown cows. There’s no reason to ask producers to label their foods in a way that will accomplish nothing but scaring away their more ignorant customers.

We don’t ask meat producers to list the drugs and food they give their cattle. We don’t ask vegetable producers to list the pesticides they use. We simply assume that by meeting USDA and FDA guidelines that they’re safe.

That said, I’m sure the market will provide for those afraid of cloned animals by labeling their sexually produced animal products as such.

Why not? I stand by my opinion that it’s exactly as important to label beef made from sex germs as it is to label food sterilized by radiation.

Now that there is a safe and healthy alternative to sex beef, perhaps the government will finally pass a law that haploid germ cell meat must be labeled clearly. It’s simply being honest.

True, and by doing so they will, in effect, label the cloned products.
Which is why Monsanto (was it?) sued the dairy producers for labeling their non-hormone products.
And don’t “the ignorant” have a right to avoid products they don’t want? I’m a little uneasy that the producers take so much trouble to sneak their product up on people.

Irradiated foods, which are labeled, are intended to benefit the consumer.
I’m not sure that can be said for cloned products.
Why do you insist upon using terms intended to vilify non-cloned foods? Is it a reaction to the term “frankenfoods”. :slight_smile:

Health concerns are not the only reason some people are interested in the way their food was produced. For instance, I buy locally grown, organic vegetables whenever possible because I’m concerned about the environmental impact of pesticide use and long-distance shipping. I’m interested in the working conditions in meat-packing plants, not just the incidence of e. coli contamination. I’m not afraid of the effect genetically engineered foods might have on my health so much as I’m afraid of their potential effect on biodiversity.

I don’t know what the larger issues of cloned cattle are. I’d have to do some research before I could weigh in with any opinion. However, if I do develop a preference, it sure would be helpful to know how the beef I’m buying is produced, just like I prefer to know how the coffee I buy is grown and sold and how the plants that make my clothing are run. I’m in favor of labeling.

Just so you know, Theres actually a health benifet to eating foods that are grown in many different places. Soil around the globe has different mixtures of minerals and what not in them. Eating foods grown elsewhere gives us those nutrients and minerals which may be lacking in the local soil.

In order to justify labeling, you have to show how beef from a healthy cloned steer is different than beef from a healthy regular steer. Or, if you prefer, the cloner has to prove that the beef is identical in order to avoid a label.

If the only difference is that one is “Ewwww, cloned!” don’t be surprised when I don’t think it’s important to put a scary label on it.

It’s the same nonsense as fretting over McDonalds shakes containing seaweed :eek: or Junior Mints containing bugs :eek:

Anyway, care to guess how much of your diet already comes from cloned or genetically engineered life forms?

Seems that the only folks who think of the label as “scary” are the pro cloners.
The ingredients of your favorite Micky D’s shake are not, of course, on the container but are readily available just for the asking. That is, in effect, labeling. I’d be satisfied with a sign by the pork chops or sweet peas in lieu of sticking a label on the product itself.
Hey, Walmart’s jumped on the organics bandwagon. Who’d a thunk it!
And if they can increase their bottom line, they will label their t-bones “non-cloned”.
Again, if there were any provable advantage to the consumer in cloned products over Terrife’s “sex germ” products, the producers would be all over it.
Do the terms “new, improved taste” etc sound familiar?

The benefit is that you get more meat/milk from each cow, not that you get better tasting meat. It’s still just a cow.

The ingredients in the shake do include ‘carrageenen’, of course the average joe doesn’t have a clue that it’s an extract of seaweed. Nor do they know that ‘confectioner’s glaze’ is really just shellac extracted from insects. Maybe we can come up with a similarly unassuming name for cloned meat, and everyone can be happy. It can be labeled, and only 2% of the population will have a clue what the label means.

Well, I was in an unproductively sarcastic mood yesterday wasn’t I? Sorry, mangeorge. I was irresistibly seduced by the temptation to use the phrase “zygote sex beef.”

Anyhoo… I mentioned food irradiation because it is a safe, effective method of food sterilization that is not substantially different from any other food processing technique. Yet irradiated food products are required by law to have a label, while other products are not. Why is this? Why should there not be laws requiring labels for food products that are prepared on a clean surface, or exposed to temperature extremes, or grown in manure?

So far as I know, there’s no evidence that food irradiation, like cloned beef, poses any danger to the consumer. So why is a labeling law necessary for either? I think that if the government legally requires a label on food, there ought to be a good reason for it. I believe that government oversight of the food industry is extremely important, which is why it’s foolish to enact laws that don’t actually have any positive value.

The proposed benefit of cloned beef, as I understand it, is that it allows the industry to select for better quality meat. If you have a superlative steer or whatever, you can clone off a herd from that one animal without the uncertainty of an extended breeding program, which should reduce the cost considerably. I submit that this is a benefit to the consumer.

I see no problem with regulating the labeling of cloned beef, just as organic or kosher food labeling is regulated. However, it’s not required by law that organic or kosher food be labeled as such, and it shouldn’t be for cloned food either. If the consumer wants to know whether their beef is cloned or not, the food industry can easily respond without the need for any laws.

Natural clone here. I don’t get what the hubbub’s about. Why, by the way, do they plan to use cloned animals? Isn’t it easier to make them the old fashioned way? Is this a preemptive reaction to a hypothetical issue still?

I don’t see what the big deal is here… after all, new apple trees are not just clones of an older one, but a frankenstein type melding of a root stock, and a fruit stock, grafted together on the trunk (cite )

Granted, a cow is a more advanced life form, but weren’t similar arguments made about artificial insemination vs Hot Bovine Lovin’ (HBL) methods? That’s not “natural” either…

Give me a reason TO label, and I might buy the argument.

You must’ve watched the same news story I did last night. The gist of the conversation I had immediately following went something along the lines of my saying “damn, that’s interesting. I wonder if there’s a beef shortage or something. But just watch, people are going to flip out over the ick factor…” and him saying “Maybe there’s something to flip out about!” And going on to say that we’ll end up getting beef from the same three “optimum” cows ad infinitum, with clones from clones of clones of clones, etc.
“But…they’re real cows. I mean, they get tested for diseases and stuff. They’ll be just like any other cow.”
“No, there’s too much that can go wrong. We’ll end up eating mutant hybrids.”