# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Okay, let me get this right

## For-Life

Last night dubbya discussed further bans on human clones, so it cannot be used for stem cell research.  However, the FDA, with his support, approved of the use of cloned meat in supermarket *with no identification labels.*


:hammer:

----------


## eyemanflying

He's definitely still on the bottle.

----------


## Jacqui

> He's definitely still on the bottle.


Sounds like it to me too.

----------


## eyemanflying

He's living proof that you can get arrested for DUI, bankrupt multiple companies while under your authority and still have a chance at obtaining the biggest job in the U.S..  Bravo!

Actually, I take that back.  I choose to remain on the straight and narrow.:)

----------


## chip anderson

Talk about him being on the bottle, did you see Teddy?

----------


## eyemanflying

> Talk about him being on the bottle, did you see Teddy?


Ya, I sure did.  Scary sight.

----------


## cocoisland58

> Last night dubbya discussed further bans on human clones, so it cannot be used for stem cell research. However, the FDA, with his support, approved of the use of cloned meat in supermarket *with no identification labels.*
> 
> 
> :hammer:


 
It isn't cloning itself that is the issue but specifically cloning humans. They have already cloned animals so no big deal. I would love to have my favorite dog back to life once again but I cringe at the idea of cloning my ex.  Hey, aren't identical twins clones?

----------


## eyemanflying

Geez, one thing's for certain...please never have GW cloned.  One of him is definitely enough.

----------


## chip anderson

One Kennedy was more than enough, but that didn't stop them from making a lot of them.

----------


## eyemanflying

> One Kennedy was more than enough, but that didn't stop them from making a lot of them.


Now there's a disgusting visual I can live without.  Bottle babies for sure.

----------


## For-Life

> It isn't cloning itself that is the issue but specifically cloning humans. They have already cloned animals so no big deal. I would love to have my favorite dog back to life once again but I cringe at the idea of cloning my ex.  Hey, aren't identical twins clones?


They have already cloned humans

Anyways, the proposal is more about cloning cells than humans.  Also, would you enjoy eating a steak that came from a cloned cow?

----------


## eyemanflying

> They have already cloned humans
> 
> Anyways, the proposal is more about cloning cells than humans. Also, would you enjoy eating a steak that came from a cloned cow?


I am in support for stem cell research and yes, I would certainly enjoy the steak but only if it's tenderloin, 2 inches thick, cooked medium rare and served with bernaisse sauce.  Oh and a nice cold can of Sleeman's Honey Brown to sip on between bites.

----------


## For-Life

I will take the beer.

And unfortunately for you, there is regulation that protects us (Canadians) from the cloned animals

----------


## eyemanflying

> I will take the beer.
> 
> And unfortunately for you, there is regulation that protects us (Canadians) from the cloned animals


It's still in the infant stage, but who knows.  In regards to the beer, I sure as hell hope I can find good stuff during the VE in April.

----------


## cocoisland58

> They have already cloned humans
> 
> Anyways, the proposal is more about cloning cells than humans. Also, would you enjoy eating a steak that came from a cloned cow?


I would not care in the least if the cow was cloned since I don't see what the harm would be assuming only the juciest and healthiest are cloned. A good filet cloned, mmmmm.

----------


## GOS_Queen

> Anyways, the proposal is more about cloning cells than humans. Also, would you enjoy eating a steak that came from a cloned cow?


 
no -  I don't trust it ...  I don't want my food irradiated, either.  I don't want my food to be a "genetically modified organism", either ...  


Please leave our food supply alone.  

Thanks.

----------


## For-Life

> I would not care in the least if the cow was cloned since I don't see what the harm would be assuming only the juciest and healthiest are cloned. A good filet cloned, mmmmm.


Considering that the health effects are not know, and that we have seen several cloned animals die in half of their time span as regular animals, then there is major concern about what potential affects eating these things can have on man.

Ie: DDT, asbestos, codeine, ect.

----------


## Spexvet

> no - I don't trust it ... I don't want my food irradiated, either. I don't want my food to be a "genetically modified organism", either ... 
> 
> 
> Please leave our food supply alone. 
> 
> Thanks.


Too late. You're already eating stuff that's really bad for you, unless you grow and raise your own food organically.

----------


## 1968

> Hey, aren't identical twins clones?


No, they are not. Identical twins have much more in common genetically than a clone does with the donor organism.

----------


## rinselberg

Having read many of For-Life's posts on international affairs, I thought he was a vegetarian. On second thought, he's probably just been exposed to too many hours of debate in the U.N. General Assembly...it's said to affect the mind in similar ways...:D

Just look for the new vendor-added label "From farms near Berkeley, using only California Certified organically raised, _naturally born_ livestock...no nitrates or other chemical preservatives"... Actually, cloned plants and animals are probably the least of anyone's concerns about the potential hazards of the food that they're eating... I'll eat or drink a cloned anything myself and not think twice about it. I haven't researched it, and I'm certainly no expert, but my WAG (Wild *** Guess) is that any effects of cloning in the food chain would be neutralized by your digestive system reducing the complex molecules in whatever you eat or drink (including the DNA) into much smaller unitary sugars and amino acids...no worries here!

If you're leery of meat from cloned animals, think about what future generations of people may be eating. "Beef" from trees. Or more likely, from giant growing vats in biochemical factories. I have no doubt that _they're_ working on new ways to culture meat as if it were a new kind of plastic or prescription drug compound. Save natural resources. Reduce global warming. And I'm all for the experiments. I'm sure that I could Google up some of these reports. You may have noticed a few on the Web or TV yourself. I know I have.




What' s making the _'berg_ (almost) lose his cool? This time it's not Global Warming skeptics, but OptiBoard posters that blame the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for every world problem under the sun. Join the conversation at _The Last Laugh_ ... and help the _'berg_ take a bite out of baloney.

----------


## For-Life

> Having read many of For-Life's posts on international affairs, I thought he was a vegetarian. On second thought, he's probably just been exposed to too many hours of debate in the U.N. General Assembly...it's said to affect the mind in similar ways...:D
> 
> Just look for the new vendor-added label "From farms near Berkeley, using only California Certified organically raised, _naturally born_ livestock...no nitrates or other chemical preservatives"... Actually, cloned plants and animals are probably the least of anyone's concerns about the potential hazards of the food that they're eating... I'll eat or drink a cloned anything myself and not think twice about it. I haven't researched it, and I'm certainly no expert, but my WAG (Wild *** Guess) is that any effects of cloning in the food chain would be neutralized by your digestive system reducing the complex molecules in whatever you eat or drink (including the DNA) into much smaller unitary sugars and amino acids...no worries here!
> 
> If you're leery of meat from cloned animals, think about what future generations of people may be eating. "Beef" from trees. Or more likely, from giant growing vats in biochemical factories. I have no doubt that _they're_ working on new ways to culture meat as if it were a new kind of plastic or prescription drug compound. Save natural resources. Reduce global warming. And I'm all for the experiments. I'm sure that I could Google up some of these reports. You may have noticed a few on the Web or TV yourself. I know I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What' s making the _'berg_ (almost) lose his cool? This time it's not Global Warming skeptics, but OptiBoard posters that blame the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for every world problem under the sun. Join the conversation at _The Last Laugh_ ... and help the _'berg_ take a bite out of baloney.



You're missing the point.  First, it is completely contradictory.

Second, it is not that it is probably okay.  The FDA's job is not to ensure that we will probably be okay.  It is to do as much research as possible until it is proven we are okay.  The FDA has not done that with this situation and has not with others.

----------


## shanbaum

> No, they are not. Identical twins have much more in common genetically than a clone does with the donor organism.


 
Really?  I thought a clone was genetically identical to the donor organism (save for a few telomeres, perhaps).

----------


## 1968

> Really? I thought a clone was genetically identical to the donor organism (save for a few telomeres, perhaps).


The nuclear DNA is identical but the mitochondrial DNA is not.

----------


## chip anderson

I wonder what makes us think that artificially created food, fuel, etc.  Is sometimes more ecologic than naturally created things.  Often more fuel, electricty generated by whatever fuel, chemicals, digging in the earth for resorces are required to make things artificially.
Has it ever crossed anyone's mind that God has his stuff together and his method of production with our help might be the best approach. 
I remember some years ago when the department of agriculture spent a lot of money and time trying to decide what was the ideal beef cattle for the U.S.  After all thier research a winner was found: "Bison."  God does things best.  Bison produces twice the beef on half the graze.  Bison is far less ceceptable to disease.  Bison has the sense to take care of each other in times of famine and disease.   So we raise Herefords, Bramas, Angus, etc.
Ethanol costs more to produce in engergy than it releases.
Our only problem with the environment is that there are too d*** many people on the earth and those are producing more too well.  This is a problem that God and/or man will solve sooner or later.  Whether by Ice age, disease or war, the population will somehow be reduced for another "hour glass" effect in the population bell curve.

Chip :Eek:

----------


## rinselberg

U.S. consumers can avoid purchasing meat from cloned livestock or the offspring of cloned livestock by looking for an "Organic" certification on the packaging. (Or by requiring their butcher to pass a lie-detector test...)

At present, cloning is being used to produce breeders. The meat that will enter the marketplace in the foreseeable future will be from the naturally bred offspring of cloned livestock that attain reproductive age without exhibiting any health problems. And from the naturally bred offspring of their offspring...

There's no question that the FDA has been investigating the safety of allowing meat from cloned livestock and their offspring to enter the human food supply.

*Reports that present livestock cloning in a positive light:*
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p...d=NEWS_RELEASE
http://meddesktop.blogspot.com/2008/...s-per-fda.html
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/cloning011508.html
http://www.bio.org/news/newsitem.asp?id=2008_0115_02

*... in a neutral or controversial light:*
http://www.physorg.com/news119629972.html
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story....0E8NBDU&page=1
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/01/15/fda.cloning/
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...116_clones.htm
http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/...animal-welfare

*FAQs:*
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloningRA_FAQConsumers_Final.htm

*FDA home page for Animal Cloning:*
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/cloning.htm


*Special for Chip!*

National Bison Association Home Page
Bold Venture LLC - "Beefalo" specialists

----------


## rinselberg

Statement by Bruce Knight, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs on FDA Risk Assessment on Animal Clones:

*January 15, 2008*

*FDA's Final Risk Assessment, Management Plan and Industry Guidance on Animal Clones and their Progeny*

USDA fully supports and agrees with FDA's final assessment that meat and milk from cattle, swine and goat clones pose no safety concerns, and these products are no different than food from traditionally bred animals.

Now that FDA has evaluated the scientific data and public comments and issued its final risk assessment, USDA will join with technology providers, producers, processors, retailers and domestic and international customers to facilitate the marketing of meat and milk from clones. We'll be working closely with stakeholders to ensure a smooth and seamless transition into the marketplace for these products.

At the same time, we understand there are currently only about 600 animal clones in the U.S., and most of them are breeding animals, so few clones will ever arrive in the marketplace. Further, USDA has encouraged technology providers to maintain their voluntary moratorium on sending milk and meat from animal clones into the food supply during this transition time.

Many farmers and ranchers routinely use other assisted reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination, embryo transfer and in vitro fertilization to produce superior animals for milk, meat or breeding purposes. Cloning is another breeding technique that has evolved and has now been demonstrated to be safe. It is helpful in creating genetic twins of the very best animals who can transmit superior characteristics to their offspring and quickly improve a herd.

In conjunction with FDA, USDA also will implement the report language in the 2008 omnibus appropriations bill suggesting that we study domestic agricultural and international trade economic implications of commercialization of milk and meat from animal clones.


USDA Release No. 0012.08

----------


## shanbaum

> The nuclear DNA is identical but the mitochondrial DNA is not.


 
Mitochondrial DNA doesn't actually affect the characteristics of the organism, does it?  I thought mitochondria had something to do with cell metabolism...

----------


## For-Life

> Statement by Bruce Knight, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs on FDA Risk Assessment on Animal Clones:
> 
> *January 15, 2008*
> 
> *FDA's Final Risk Assessment, Management Plan and Industry Guidance on Animal Clones and their Progeny*
> 
> USDA fully supports and agrees with FDA's final assessment that meat and milk from cattle, swine and goat clones pose no safety concerns, and these products are no different than food from traditionally bred animals.
> 
> Now that FDA has evaluated the scientific data and public comments and issued its final risk assessment, USDA will join with technology providers, producers, processors, retailers and domestic and international customers to facilitate the marketing of meat and milk from clones. We'll be working closely with stakeholders to ensure a smooth and seamless transition into the marketplace for these products.
> ...



Oh, thanks Rinsie.  This is definitely another group we can trust :sarcasm:

I have to ask you, what is the real rush behind this decision anyways?  Who will benefit?

----------


## Jacqui

> Who will benefit?


BIG cattle raisers and BIG packing companies and other BIG money people. :(:(:(

----------


## For-Life

exactly

Does the US have a current cattle shortage right now?

----------


## FullCircle

Have you ever made a copy of a copy of a copy? Notice how it starts to look bad compared to the original?

Bad breeding of animals can be bad enough. Toss in cloning and I'mnot liking the possibilities.

----------


## Jacqui

> exactly
> 
> Does the US have a current cattle shortage right now?



no, does anyone??

----------


## Leo Hadley Jr

Back to Topic.....

I wouldnt mind growing myself a Liver and a couple Kidneys. Just in case I might need them someday. I would not need to find a match if I had my own viable organs in a cooler.
My mother died awaiting an organ donor.

----------


## Jacqui

> exactly
> 
> Does the US have a current cattle shortage right now?


Maybe this could help solve a pig shortage??
http://www.newsweek.com/id/107592?GT1=10856

----------


## rinselberg

> Oh, thanks Rinsie.  This is definitely another group we can trust... I have to ask you, what is the real rush behind this decision anyways?  Who will benefit?


The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine has been researching the safety of cloned animal products in the human food supply since 2001.

FDA Release No. 011508 "Animal Cloning and Food Safety"
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/cloning011508.html

----------


## rinselberg

> Have you ever made a copy of a copy of a copy? Notice how it starts to look bad compared to the original? Bad breeding of animals can be bad enough. Toss in cloning and I'm not liking the possibilities.


I think it's expected (even regulated) that the ranchers will not breed any of the clones or offspring of the clones (down to whatever generation) that are not up to the same standards that were in place for breeding before cloning became a possibility. No breeding of animals that exhibit health problems. No breeding of animals that don't appear to measure up in terms of the amount and quality of beef.

They would probably "back breed" by breeding some of the offspring back to a 1G or directly cloned animal.

----------


## FullCircle

> I think it's expected (even regulated) that the ranchers will not breed any of the clones or offspring of the clones (down to whatever generation) that are not up to the same standards that were in place for breeding before cloning became a possibility. No breeding of animals that exhibit health problems. No breeding of animals that don't appear to measure up in terms of the amount and quality of beef.
> 
> They would probably "back breed" by breeding some of the offspring back to a 1G or directly cloned animal.


True, but you wouldn't think that they'd feed a downed animal to other animals but that seems to have gone on.

----------


## rinselberg

Good point FullCircle. But to me that says the risk isn't going to be from cloning, but from more "traditional" problems, like slaughtering a downed animal and selling it as beef. They're not supposed to be using any cattle remains in livestock feed because of the risk of Mad Cow Disease.

Cloning or not, these "old" risks are still the same as before--not any greater because of cloning.

I think you can read that "between the lines" of the FDA reports that I've cited.

----------


## For-Life

> The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine has been researching the safety of cloned animal products in the human food supply since 2001.
> 
> FDA Release No. 011508 "Animal Cloning and Food Safety"
> http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/cloning011508.html


It has been argued that the testing and research has come up short compared to other products.  Actually, it has been claimed that the FDA only did qualitative research and only 15 samples :drop:

There was also only one peer reviewed research paper used.  (Source, CBC News Sunday - January 27, 2008).

Seems rather weak.  Additionally, Canadian and European food, drug, and consumer protection groups have stepped up to say the research is not enough, and will not move forward with the recommendations of the FDA.

In the end we also have to ask ourselves another question.  Cloning is 12 years old.  Research for food safety is 5 years.  Is that really enough?  Shouldn't we let a few generations and offsprings of these animals be examined before we move forward.

In the end, it is not like this has to be rushed forward.

----------


## For-Life

> I think it's expected (even regulated) that the ranchers will not breed any of the clones or offspring of the clones (down to whatever generation) that are not up to the same standards that were in place for breeding before cloning became a possibility. No breeding of animals that exhibit health problems. No breeding of animals that don't appear to measure up in terms of the amount and quality of beef.
> 
> They would probably "back breed" by breeding some of the offspring back to a 1G or directly cloned animal.


There are several scientists who are arguing that the life line of these animals has been half of their original beings.  Again, not enough time yet to make a good observation, but that goes two ways.

----------


## 1968

> Mitochondrial DNA doesn't actually affect the characteristics of the organism, does it?  I thought mitochondria had something to do with cell metabolism...


I don't know to what extent, if any, mitochondrial DNA affects what we would typically consider to be the physical characteristics of an organism. It certainly can affect its functional characteristics. If one organism has Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy and its clone doesn't, then I wouldn't consider them to be identical even if their outward appearance was indistinguishable.

The point is that one shouldn't expect that cloning a favorite dog (or loved one) would allow one to end up with a dog (or loved one) that looks or acts like the original.

----------

