More, maybe so. But how does this benefit the buyer? Lower prices? Wanna bet? Spending millions to not label costs the consumer.
“Cloned” is pretty unassuming, imo.
It simply means that your ribeye comes from a steer who is his own daddy. :dubious:
But all this is seemingly moot. Retailers are going to solve the dilema themselves by labeling the “not” products. Here come the lawyers, eh?
If the producers would just go ahead and label the produce, with some positive propoganda in the media, the regulatory agancies wouldn’t even get involved. My objection is that they want to sneak it up on us. If they do that and consumers refuse to accept cloned products, then don’t clone. We shouldn’t be compelled to buy something we don’t want, whatever the reason for that reluctance.
Again I ask, “what’s in it for me?”.
We seem to be on this slippery slope.
Of course, nobody will be eating the cloned meat. Clones are way too expensive. We’ll be eating the offspring of prized steers. In effect, it’s no different than shipping semen around. Just more effective since the clones will last longer and service more heifers than any one bull would.
This makes the whole thing moot, as there’s no chance whatsoever that the sexually conceived offspring of a clone could harm a human, but some people will still demand labeling. But why? Why should we ask farmers who use cloned stock to label their product in a way that will protect no one, and accomplish nothing but scaring the ignorant and easily alarmed.
Lots of food is already cloned. Fruit has been cloned for years.
Well I concede that people shouldn’t have to buy stuff they don’t want. On the other hand, how a product is described has a big influence on whether people want it or not, and that effect is not always rational. I don’t think the food industry ought to be governed by irrational laws. My uncle prefers to eat brown eggs instead of white eggs; he thinks the brown ones are more nutritious, and nothing will shift this notion. I don’t see the need for a law requiring that foods containing eggs must list the color of the eggshells, though.
Kosher food seems like a fairly good example to me. Some people want food with certain qualities. Even though these qualities may not be strictly rational, these people are willing to buy or not buy based on them. Because the food industry wants that business, they respond with a labeling system; the government makes sure that system is honest; everyone’s happy. There’s no reason for the government to pass a law saying that all non-kosher food must also be labeled.
There doesn’t seem to be any reason for a law to single out cloned beef, other than the fact that some people seem creeped out by the idea of eating a clone. But if you like beef, there’s a chance that you may already have eaten a clone, or many. I doubt that ranchers take any special care to prevent twin cows from being sent to market, because no one cares if they are eating meat from an identical twin cow, which is the exact same thing as a clone cow. If people haven’t gotten all worked up about the twin cow problem by now, I think it’s kind of pointless to suddenly worry about eating clones.
This argument isn’t quite the cloned beef issue, but genetically modified crops, for which all the same arguments are made: the future of a good part of humanity literally depends on their not being irrationally afraid of their food.
Here in the first world, we have the luxury of being able to be irrational. But, (if has happened in the past), people manage to convince starving nations that genetically modified grains are poisonous, millions can die. I’ve heard estimates that genetically modified drought-resistant crops have saved literally a billion lives in the last fifty years, though that number seems inflated. Certainly it’s well known that there isn’t enough arable land on Earth to feed everyone by organic methods (nor, by actual scientific data, is organic food better for you: quite the opposite, in fact).
And here’s something we know for sure: nearly every animal and plant we eat has been genetically modified; we just did it the slow way for most of them. You wouldn’t recognize the “natural” forms of most of your vegetables, for example.
The fundamental issue is truth, and people’s willingness (and given the Internet, ability) to disseminate falsehoods as truth: observe kids dying of whooping cough and polio because some loud nutcases have decided that immunizations cause autism–despite a dozen studies proving it doesn’t. Or the ongoing debates about aspartame and sucralose, mostly by people who can’t even tell the difference–and again in defiance of data.
If we let irrational fear drive the market, and label every change, every new food product will fail–including those that will save lives (irradiation virtually eliminates e. coli, flouride in the water may put dentists out of business in my lifetime, and pasturization (which if it were introduced today, would no doubt cause similar hysteria) has saved millions of lives worldwide.) When other people’s irrational fears start making everybody’s food less safe by removing options (as the increasing move toward organics is doing now), we all suffer.
Eat the bloody identical-to-“natural”-at-the-DNA-level cloned beef already.
So the producers fought (and still resist) labeling cloned foods because they want to fight statvation in the third world? Cool. 
That really strengthens my faith in my fellow human, and especially in the corporate culture.
I’m pretty sure that the food supply problem is political, though, and not due to any objection to or fear of genetically altered foods.
I’m diabetic, and every diabetic I personally know uses Splenda or NutraSweet to satisfy their sweet tooth. Not much for the pink package, though.
It’s funny. Many of the people I know who side with “don’t tell” crowd also like to say “let the buyer beware”. I say “let the buyer be aware”.
Meanwhile, clone me a new pancreas. Please. And a heart, too, just in case. Do something freakin’ useful.
Nobody’s saying “Don’t tell.” Just that people are going to get panicky over nothing if they do see a label that says their meat was cloned. And lo and behold.
What is it about cloned protein you feel threatens your health? I mean, more than the current cloned protein?
I’m with you. As are many people who feel it would do a lot of good. Unfortunately, congress and the POTUS aren’t.
Who’s going to panic, Maureen? Most of those I’m around are aware of all the products mentioned here, and none are panicky!
I didn’t say I feel threatened about cloning. I do feel somewhat uneasy about producers getting all panicky about consumers learning that they do clone food, and try to hide the fact.
Ah. Actually, I was referring to my first post. That conversation I had lasted a good 15 minutes and came down to “well, I don’t care what any expert says. It just sounds wrong.”
No, I didn’t. I was pointing out that there was no difference. The cloning has no effect in the composition of the meat.
Would you object to two identical twin cows? What’s the difference between that and a cow cloned from another?
Dishonest? Would it be more honest if the producer said “this meat only comes from brown cows”? How about a requirement that the meat say it was from an artificially inseminated cows?
Cloning is irrelevant and unimportant.
If you wish to, fine. But don’t require people to label something that has no health impact.
Not in the slightest; I have no idea what you’re referring to.
No, they fight it because a majority of people won’t buy it if they label it, because of irrational and scientifically unsubstantiated fear. As others point out, you could put ANY label with a scary scientific term on food and get this reaction – most people aren’t educated about every aspect of nutrition science, and will assume “label=bad.” The producers want to make money, and apparently felt that the cloning was going to improve their process in some way.
The reason we don’t want (the government) to force them to, is to fight starvation in the third world–and closer to home, to promote health and well being by allowing scientific breakthroughs to actually help people, instead of automatically being the death knell for a product.
If you can produce repeatable science that says that “X” is bad for you, then fine – label it. Better yet, pull it off the market. But if the science says the opposite, leave it alone, or you’ll kill everything new before it ever has a chance to be accepted.
Labels should be required when you have to warn people of potential problems. Not to warn people that their food is being made via a safe and wholesome process. This is where an optional label is the way to go.
Crops like soybeans and corn are grown with GMO strains of seed. Some people do not want to eat a genetically modified organism, they have the opportunity to educate themselves on the issue and seek out “non-GMO” foods from their local stores. Milk is often from cows that are given artificial Bovine Growth Hormone. People who don’t like that can seek out “hormone free” milk.
The FDA says that cloning, GMO and BGH are safe and create wholesome foods. You shouldn’t have to label things that are safe. However, choosing to label foods that are different from the norm, to distinguish yourself from the field, that is a good idea.
Some years ago Monsanto, I think it was, sued a dairy back east to bar the labeling of their products as coming from “non-bgh” cows.
The dairy was small, and could ill-afford to defend their right to affix such a label.
My memory is vague, and I don’t have time right now to find the cites.
See ya Monday!
The result of the suit was that dairies could mention being rBST/rBGH free, but had to add a disclaimer. I have hormone free milk and butter in my fridge, here is the disclaimer from the butter package.
I see no problem with that. You know what you’re getting, and the dairy industry doesn’t appear to have crashed.
Thanks, Cheesesteak.
Funny, I’m suddenly hungry. :dubious:
Peace, and Happy New Year
mangeorge
BTW; did the use of rBST/rBGH in dairy result in better quality/lower prices to the consumer?