FDA Set To Approve Products from Cloned Cows

phantomlord writes "The FDA is currently set to allow beef and milk from cloned animals onto the market. Further, the products will likely not be branded as such and there is no way to know if we're currently consuming products from cloned animals." From the article: "Farmers and companies that have been growing cloned barnyard animals from single cells in anticipation of a lucrative market say cloning will bring consumers a level of consistency and quality impossible to attain with conventional breeding, making perfectly marbled beef and reliably lean and tasty pork the norm on grocery shelves. But groups opposed to the new technology, including a coalition of powerful food companies concerned that the public will reject Dolly-the-Lamb chops and clonal cream in their coffee, have not given up."

Comments

I'm excited.

[dada21]

More producing products (cows, in this case) mean more supply of the products I use (cream, cheese and other high fat-low carb dairy products). More supply means lower prices. Lower prices means more business opportunities, which means a stronger economic outlook for those who can't afford the high barrier to entry created by the high cost to breed cattle.

I'm sure there are some health concerns (my wife prefers organic, I prefer mass produced for my daily consumption), but I'm not sure that the concerns are valid. I travel the globe and specifically like to visit previously poor countries (Ethiopia, Uganda, India, etc) and what I see is people who have better lives because of the ability to purchase their needs cheaper. If the health concern is a higher rate of disease that might knock 5 years off your life expectancy, but being able to eat or clothe yourself or keep your body mass consistant will add 20 years, this sounds like a net benefit. Beyond the health concerns, though, we also can see that cheaper dairy might mean more business opportunities in the previously poor areas -- and this also increases the standard of living and life expectancy of the person willing to get involved in the new marketplace.

I absolutely, positively do NOT want government requirements for labeling. If I am concerned with labeling, I will call the manufacturer of the product and ASK. I already do it because I don't consume trans fats (except for naturally occuring ones in beef). The government was "supposed" to regulate trans fat labels, but they haven't. Many items say 0 trans fats but contain a significant amount below 1 gram, and your government allows it to be labeled 0 grams. Nice. That's government at its finest. When I see 0 grams of trans fats, I will call the manufacturer and ask them to confirm the fact that there are zero, and most of the time they'll say "there's a negligible amount" which is the equivalent of saying "yeah, they're in there." No thanks.

Forcing companies to label properly does NOT work. "Organic" means nothing, "0 trans fats" means nothing, "low sugar" means nothing, "whole grains" means nothing. If you're worried, contact the company directly and figure it out on your own.

Cloned animals seems good to me -- if I can get marbled beef at a discount, I'll be happy. If beef jerky comes down even 20% in price, I'll be happy. If creams and cheeses can be made at the same quality for a lower price, I'll be happy. All of these items keep me healthy, slim and energized, and the cost savings means I can eat more -- making myself even healthier.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will call the manufacturer of the product and ASK

Obviously the solution is to require them to not lie to you.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

what about milk quotas? now where's your economic argument?

I'm not drinking that crap anyway, not that it'd be any worse than now, i imagine, with all the steroids they feed cows..

chocolate milk straight from the cow?

call me when they have flying cows

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

But the requirements DON'T work. The State solutions fall apart because of other State "solutions" to "fixing" tort, fraud and even definitions of legal rights/processes.

Truth in labeling can be arguably called broken. There is no way to fix it -- the laws are too complicated, the paternalism and preferential treatment of protected parties is too strong and embedded, and the consumers just don't care. I would even venture a guess that MOST "label" laws are written by the most powerful in the industry -- the costs to try to get the labeling done by an independent lab is high because those labs are limited in number and licensed by the State.

I barely read the labels anymore -- I do read the ingredients but I even take that with a grain of salt (no pun intended). For me, I have to see how my body is affected by a new product, and if I don't feel right, I'll not consume that product. I'm a very healthy individual, so eating something unhealthy tends to immediately make me feel a little weaker or a little out of whack. I'm guessing that a lot of consumers just aren't healthy to begin with, so they're not as tuned to their bodies rejection of bad things.

I still stick to the fact that the poor around the world are generally BETTER OFF because of advancing in science, and that science will keep advancing even if it takes a step back on occasion. Cheap CAN mean better, depending on what your definition of "good" is. For an Western consumer with available credit, they might feel better in buying local organic (like my wife does) from a local farm. For someone who can't eat at all because the food isn't available, making cheaper versions of the product makes a lot of sense.

Re:I'm excited.

[networkBoy]

I really don't see the problem here. (agreeing with you)

These anamals are not GMOs they are clones. Big differance.
-nB

Re:I'm excited.

[jimicus]

Rubbish. It may impact price, but it will have almost no impact on quality which is already uniformly low in the average supermarket.

You know how in IT, we say "good, fast, cheap: choose any two"? Much the same applies to meat. In this case, it's a trade off between lean meat, tasty, tender, length of time needed to prepare and cost.

There are a number of things which affect what comes out when the cow is shot, skinned, cut up and put onto little shrink-wrapped polystyrene trays. Sure, one of them is the breed, but two very big factors are how the animal lived and how long the meat was hung after slaughter. Neither of which is affected in the slightest by whether your cow was made by a boy and a girl cow who loved each other very much, by a man with a syringe full of bull sperm or by a farmer wearing a flat cap and an old tweed jacket working in a lab.

Re:I'm excited.

[nessus42]

If I am concerned with labeling, I will call the manufacturer of the product and ASK.

You're going to call up every company for every product that you buy? And then expect to reach someone who will know the answer? And even if they do know the answer, you expect them to give you a truthful one?

Without regulation, your hair dye would contain toxic amounts of lead. Oh, wait a minute -- it currently does! Sure, you have a point, the regulations are highly flawed. But without them, it is clear that corporations would try and succeed in getting away with murder.

To fix the regulations so that they actually work, vote your bum of a corporate lackey representative out of office and tell him or her why.

|>oug

Re:I'm excited.

[Yer Mum]

Your life expectancy is longer than the average Ugandan, as it is for most Americans. I'm surprised you'd want to trade it for a price cut.

Then again, as the products you buy are unlabeled, you won't know one way or the other unless you make several phone calls to check the contents of your shopping trolly every time you go shopping. So how would prices fall anyway?

Labelling does work, if the government is willing to implement its own laws, as has been shown in the EU.

It seems to me the only interest you have in food is price and possibly taste. Unfortunately this is a sentiment held by many people in western countries, and explains the current obesity rate.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

I'll throw rubbish back at you. I disagree with the "good, cheap, fast" because it absolutely does NOT prove itself in reality. I've been running businesses since I was 13, and I tell you think: I always sold 2 of the 3, but I also tried to make the third better. This is how competition works.

If I was good and cheap, my competitor would try to mimic me and try to do it faster. Eventually, they would. Over time, good gets better, cheap gets cheaper, and fast gets faster. It is ridiculous to think of competition as a closed system. Actually, a State-licensed market IS a closed system only because no one has to worry about good, cheap OR fast. State-licensing makes things worse, more expensive and slower. See DMV for proof.

Re:I'm excited.

[kiatoa]

Wow. A crazy post with +5 insightful. You know that one of the tenets of a working free market is an equally free flow of information? No free information means consumers (and producers) can't make good economic decisions. If you have the time and resources to call the manufacturer of every good you care about then bully to you. For the rest of us labeling is very important. The quality of the lables is a separate issue not to be confused with the need for labels. I think "Organic" and "zero trans fats" are pretty well defined and meaningful but would agree with you that "low sugar" is not. Labeling is working and those who pay attention to the information and make use of it are much the healthier for it.

As far as cloning goes, I have a hunch that there is some hidden unintended consequence that will manifest itself down the road but only time (and research) will tell.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

Voting does nothing. I vote, but not for anyone you'd vote for. The best way to vote is with your dollars -- and don't tell ANYONE why you stopped buying their product, but tell your friends and family why you did. Competition rises to meet demand, so when you remove demand, other competitors have to figure out WHY. That is what makes items better. If you set a bar at a certain level, the market will try to rise to ONLY that level (this is why the State fails, because they set the bar too low). If you set a bar at a level undetermined, but higher than now, the market will try to raise the bar until you're happy. Usually in raising their bar, they find new ways to provide a better product at a higher quality in a faster period of time and at a lower price.

Voting with your dollars matters, voting at the ballot is a joke.

Re:I'm excited.

[balsy2001]

I agree a few more details on the labeling. The requirement to use "0 trans fat" or "fat free" is that there is only 0.5g PER SERVING. So it doesn't even have to be significantly below the 1g level. From http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/foodlabel/ newlabel.html Free. This term means that a product contains no amount of, or only trivial or "physiologically inconsequential" amounts of, one or more of these components: fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, sugars, and calories. For example, "calorie-free" means fewer than 5 calories per serving, and "sugar-free" and "fat-free" both mean less than 0.5 g per serving. Synonyms for "free" include "without," "no" and "zero." A synonym for fat-free milk is "skim". There are also many other defenitions for "low", "lean", "high"....

Re:I'm excited.

[LordNimon]

I travel the globe and specifically like to visit previously poor countries (Ethiopia, Uganda, India, etc) and what I see is people who have better lives because of the ability to purchase their needs cheaper. If the health concern is a higher rate of disease that might knock 5 years off your life expectancy, but being able to eat or clothe yourself or keep your body mass consistant will add 20 years, this sounds like a net benefit.

I'm not concerned about what's better for them, I'm concerned about what's better for me. They might benefit from cloned cows, because they already live crappy lives. But I don't live a crappy life. I have access to healthy living, so I have a higher standard for the food I eat. I want to know where the food I eat comes from, and how it was made and prepared. I have concerns about food from cloned animals because I read that cloned animals have genetic problems.

So please, don't tell me that if it's good enough for them, then it should be good enough for me, because it isn't.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how in IT, we say "good, fast, cheap: choose any two"?

No, but I know that little soundbite was used in reference to car mechanics long before any of us was likely born.

There are a number of things which affect what comes out when the cow is shot, skinned, cut up and put onto little shrink-wrapped polystyrene trays. Sure, one of them is the breed, but two very big factors are how the animal lived and how long the meat was hung after slaughter. Neither of which is affected in the slightest by whether your cow was made by a boy and a girl cow who loved each other very much, by a man with a syringe full of bull sperm or by a farmer wearing a flat cap and an old tweed jacket working in a lab.

While I don't doubt that this is all true, it's really not to the point. If you're buying trash at the meat counter to begin with, you're going to get trash going forward. Genetically strained crap is still crap.

If, however, you inentionally seek out quality meat, being able to consistently supply that meat from a handful of proven genetic lines will enable consistently high quality. No worries that one family's line was killed off by some sort of accident or disease and has to be replaced with an unproven genetic line, just whip up a new batch of that line to replace what was lost.

Re:I'm excited.

[pubjames]

Your rant makes me think you probably have lots of arguments with your wife about this...

Re:I'm excited.

[siwelwerd]

But without them, it is clear that corporations would try and succeed in getting away with murder.

It's generally in a company's best interests to keep it's customers alive. Something about repeat business, they tell me.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

Wrong. The equal free flow of information is absolutely UNNECESSARY and uncompetitive. If I know a process and my competitor wants to compete with me, free flow of information is counterproductive. If I don't share my process, my competitor will work harder to figure out how I do it, and eventually even find a better way of doing it.

If I am selling an item and you want it, you can NOT know what my costs are, how I make it, or how much it costs me to sit on it until it sells. I can NOT know how much you have in your wallet. When we barter the trade, you and I both decide what the trade is worth. I need a certain amount of money, but if you offer over that, I'll be happy. If you offer below that, I won't sell. You need a certain product, but if you know how much it costs me, you won't pay over that amount.

Free flow is NOT capitalistic, in fact it is socialistic. It tries to remove the risk in any transaction -- it is that risk that gives both parties a great reward of feeling like they profited from the barter.

"Organic" and "Zero Trans Fats" are not working -- the definition is too broad. Zero does not mean zero, organic does not always mean 100% organic.

As to calling the manufacturers, I generally only have to do it once. 1/2 an hour for a lifetime of consumption is a good investment.

Re:I'm excited.

[parseexception]

When I first read this, I thought this has to be satire, and I'm still not entirely sure it isnt. But the overall point of the comment seems to be that cloning will make meat cheaper, this is not correct, it's not going to change how much it costs to raise the animal, feed, medical shipping, butchering etc, all it will produce is a copy of one specific animal, it seems if anything cloned stuff may be more expensive, higly prized for its consistant marble etc. not to mention isnt it more expensive to clone a animal then regular insemination methods? as far as helping developing countries, come on if they cant support raising the animals now, why will this help? These companies are not doing this for altruistic(sp) reasons, they want profit. as for opposing labeling, its probably more important than ever as the FDA seems to not give one crap about the safty of the products they rubber stamp. again this seems like satire. -Parse

Re:I'm excited.

[Foobar of Borg]

There is only one reasonable response to your rambling idiocy.

MMMMMMOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

I've been to Uganda and am going back in December, and their variety of products is minimal. Cloned beef and dairy in the U.S. will give us MORE choice -- and lower prices IF WE WANT IT. Whole foods won't buy the stuff, so just shop there. We do, when we want healthier variety. Yet the cloned cows might make the uncloned farms work harder to reduce prices.

That's how competition works -- some of us will pay more for a grocer who checks their suppliers. Others won't. ALDI versus Whole Foods Market.

I live in the Midwest and we purchase unpasteurized cream locally. It tastes great, it's healthier, and it's cheaper. Competition.

Prices fall because of competition, but the State tries to prevent competition from occuring because they're usually financed by those who don't want to compete.

Re:I'm excited.

[EatHam]

don't consume trans fats (except for naturally occuring ones in beef). The government was "supposed" to regulate trans fat labels, but they haven't. Many items say 0 trans fats but contain a significant amount below 1 gram, and your government allows it to be labeled 0 grams. Nice. That's government at its finest. When I see 0 grams of trans fats, I will call the manufacturer and ask them to confirm the fact that there are zero, and most of the time they'll say "there's a negligible amount" which is the equivalent of saying "yeah, they're in there." No thanks.

You could always just not eat packaged food. It's cheaper, more nutritious, and better all around for both you and the environment to not eat anything that comes in a package. Sure, there's a little expense for time, but the quality you end up with makes it well worthwhile. Especially if you have a wife and don't have to cook it yourself.

Re:I'm excited.

[Jherek Carnelian]

But without them, it is clear that corporations would try and succeed in getting away with murder.

It's generally in a company's best interests to keep it's customers alive. Something about repeat business, they tell me.

That's not how wallstreet works. Nobody cares about anything but next quarter's numbers. So if prematurely terminating your customers will help you meet this quarter's earning's forecast, that's exactly what corporate america will do.

Re:I'm excited.

[bhima]

Interesting... I mostly disagree with you but I'm not surprised. My other random comments:

They should come up with a new word for these professionals who work for corporate farms to distinguish them from farmers

I prefer to purchase the majority of my food from a farmer who I can look in the eye... i.e. who lives nearby. I got on this kick a while back and I'm surprised how easy it is to get a majority of my family's food from within a 85 kilometer radius. (including most of my alcohol)

I here you on the labeling thing but I really do have content concerns and they absolutely don't get addressed with the US labeling system. But at least I can ask the farmer when I am at his farm what the deal is.

Clones mean monoculture doesn't that suggest one nasty bug means significant loss of product. Clones also mean patents and other artificially induced scarcity (I'l bet they won't be able to reproduce either)

Beef sucks, chicken raised in those corporate farm sucks. Venison, Kudu, _Impala_, and other wild-game meat is the most tasty thing you can buy. Warthog is good but tough...

If you like jerky you may _love_ biltong... but it may be impossible to dry in your climate

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

Thanks for that -- I didn't have a link. The BIG problem with 0.5g per serving is WHO sets the serving size? I've already found 3 products that have trans fats that have cut their serving size in order to get the transfats under 0.5g per serving. If there are 0.6 grams of trans fats in a 60 gram serving and they cut the serving size to 40 grams, guess what? They can now say "Zero Trans Fats" because the trans fats per serving is 0.4 grams. They didn't reduce trans fats, they reduced the serving size. They also keep the overall container size the same, as people will eat as much as they want to -- usually over the serving size. Labelling laws at their finest.

Re:I'm excited.

[Jeremi]

Wrong. The equal free flow of information is absolutely UNNECESSARY and uncompetitive.

If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. No, you can't see it. Trust me, it's really nice.

Re:I'm excited.

[localman]

I absolutely, positively do NOT want government requirements for labeling

Why not? If we're about letting the market sort this stuff out, don't we need to at least make sure people are able to make informed decisions?

Cheers.

Re:I'm excited.

[ciaohound]

Ha, ha, agreed, totally. In my household, when either of us begins a rant, the other is entitled to just roll their eyes and say, "Steroids-in-Milk Rant," or "Dog-Owners-Who-Don't-Bag-their-Dog's-Shit Rant," and we move on to something else.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

Everyone wants profit -- it is what keeps your profitable in the long run that helps both producers and consumers. If consumers like the product and the price falls, both the consumer and the producer are happy. The FDA works against the tide to try to create protectionism for large market producers, but they label the protectionism as "pro-consumer" when in fact it is not. The FDA is unconstitutional, should be disbanded, and should be replaced by a competitive quality control industry like we have in the Underwriter's Laboratories.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

You didn't impede the free flow of information there, you just didn't offer me what I wanted specifically in our trade. I have actually bought things sight-unseen because of the price. I figured if it wasn't what I wanted, I could resell it and try to break even. So far, I haven't failed because the deal outweighed the risks and I usually got close to what I wanted. I just bought $6000 worth of print equipment for $500, and the market value of what I received is almost $3500.

The free flow of information is not a real market necessity. If you need information, you ASK about it. The cost of the seller to meet your asking requirements will decide if they want to do it. If they don't, go elsewhere. Maybe NO ONE will give you the information you want at the price you want -- this means that you're asking too much of the marketplace overall.

Re:I'm excited.

[Ixne]

It's generally in a company's best interests to keep it's customers alive. Something about repeat business, they tell me.

I'd like to introduce you to this little thing we have called the Tobacco Industry...

Re:I'm excited.

[LearnToSpell]

And by your argument above, you'd prefer they take that information off completely? Then you could just phone the company and ask how many grams of trans fat there are? Truly bizarre...

Re:I'm excited.

[cliffski]

agreed 100%. I'd much prfer to see MORE labeling regulations, and have them enforced big time, not just with minor fines for trangressions, but with nationwide product recalls, seriously huge fines, and where possible, direct personal prosecutions of those who knowingly allow mislabelling. Food isnt like buying new trainers, I put *this* product INSIDE my body.

There is literally no limit to what sludge food manufacturers will shoehorn into your daily diet if they are given free reign. We have a great local, independent, old fashioned butchers in my road. They do superb pork pies, several times I've bought them for people I know, who have marvelled at them, and asked whats in them. "pork" is the answer, as opposed to the jelly, water, crushed ear lobes, eyeballs and other yucky slimy crud that most supermarkets cram into their 'pork' pies. The parent poster may trust big business to put what it likes in food. Most of us do not, and with good reason.

Re:I'm excited.

[FLEB]

Okay, so it'll make the meat better. If it becomes economically more viable to produce better meat in high quantity, than the price of higher-quality meat should go down. Agreed, though, this might not have as much of an effect on increasing overall supply, especially where concern for quality is extremely unimportant in contrast for raw cost concern.

Re:I'm excited.

[smchris]

I have to see how my body is affected by a new product, and if I don't feel right, I'll not consume that product. I'm a very healthy individual, so eating something unhealthy tends to immediately make me feel a little weaker or a little out of whack.

Remember the Married with Children episode where Peg kills the TV Exercise show host when she wins a week of in-home consultation? Without resistence, a person is helpless today.

There was a time when I was in that state where I could quickly sense what was bad. About the only thing that gave me the immediate sense that it was _good_ was 100% WW bread from a bakery that claimed to personally grind the berries daily.

But can we really trust the genetic value of taste much beyond poisoning to something like carcinogens where the effects may not be felt until after reproduction?

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

They should come up with a new word for these professionals who work for corporate farms to distinguish them from farmers

I'm not sure it matters -- within 60 miles of my house we have a number of natural food grocers (and some co-ops of grocers) who take the time to investigate what they're buying. I prefer to pay 30% for their labor in doing this. The State still sets requirements on these companies that prevents them from doing everything I'd want them to do.

I prefer to purchase the majority of my food from a farmer who I can look in the eye... i.e. who lives nearby. I got on this kick a while back and I'm surprised how easy it is to get a majority of my family's food from within a 85 kilometer radius. (including most of my alcohol)

Myself as well. We also do buy our alcohol locally as much as possible. Living in the Midwest is awesome for that. We buy our cheese from Wisconsin farmers (and sometimes import cheese from Whole Foods Market), we buy our cream unpasteurized, and we buy our beefs through a wholesale cooperative in Texas that doesn't sell retail and as far as I know doesn't even offer USDA certification but I could be wrong.

Where do you live?


If you like jerky you may _love_ biltong... but it may be impossible to dry in your climate

I love venison jerky and buy a lot of it after the fall -- from local hunters who make it themselves. I've had ostrich biltong that is made locally (we have an ostrich farm the next town over!) and it is awesome, but pricy. I also love Polish Kabanosi (sp?) and Brezaolo (sp) which are both available from local ethnic meat markets for a very good price. Don't leave them in the car in the hot sun for long, though, the stink is worse than that Seinfeld episode and greatly reduces your car's resale value :)

Re:I'm excited.

[radtea]

Forcing companies to label properly does NOT work.

Shady processors adulterated fertilizers, deodorized rotten eggs, revived rancid butter, substituted glucose for honey. Farmers began to learn about such deceptions from a new breed of agriculture chemists, often trained in Germany, located in State officialdom and helped by Federal funds. These chemists could apply their scientific skills to expose the work of chemists employed by industry to depreciate food products, as the Senate Report put it, in "a greed for gain."

Anyone who is interested in the mundane world of fact, rather than fanciful flights of political ideology, knows that prior to regulation and inspection, the quality of food was much lower than it is today. The quote above describes the situation in the mid-1800's, prior the the first national pure food act in the U.S. in 1906.

The law is a powerful instrument, and it has proven to be more effective than anything else in forcing people who are selling things to not lie about what they are selling.

The issue with food labelling has nothing to do with any rational concerns about food quality, however. The only issue is that consumers have a right to know what they are buying. In practice, the only way of ensuring that right is honoured is to have legal sanctions against lieing about what is being sold, and uniform labelling standards are by far the most efficient way of doing this.

Personally, I'm not at all keen on supporting an even more uniform agricultural monoculture than we have now, so if meat from cloned animals was labelled I would tend to avoid it.

Re:I'm excited.

[perrin]

I am usually impressed by feats of intelligence. But for once, I must say that I am duly impressed by idiocy. I thought the post was satire at first. But then, of course, requiring people to phone the factory for every product they want to buy to ask what it contains and hope for someone clueful to tell you something truthful, just makes sense if you will just, I don't know, stand on your head and sing 'lalalalalala' at the same time.

I do not really know how labelling works in the US, but it works fine over here in Old Europe.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

No, not at all. I'd prefer to see the market provide what the consumers want. Some consumers might not care at all what is in the package -- they might just want cheap and "tasty." I think a lot of ALDI shoppers might feel that way. If the producer can meet their needs cheaper, go for it. Other consumers might want a small book made by the producer describing everything about their manufacturing process and updated yearly. Who knows.

The bar standard of the State labeling is a one-size-fits-all standard, like ALL State-forced standards. All of them fail: education, vehicle safety, food labeling, even medical standards. One-size-does-not-fit-all, and I don't like thinking that we're left with LESS choice and MORE collusion because of it.

Would labeling disappear without the State? Absolutely not! Instead, consumers would get what they're willing to pay for. If you're cheap and don't care, don't blame me for what you're eating. If I want to spend more for more information, I bet there are thousands more like me who would help to bring the cost down to meet those needs together. Producers would be happy to sell those products, especially if we're willing to pay more.

Re:I'm excited.

[nessus42]

It's generally in a company's best interests to keep it's customers alive. Something about repeat business, they tell me.

It's generally in a company's best interests to maximize its profits. If some fraction of a company's customers happen to die due to a badly designed gas tank, get sick from lead poisoning in their hair dye, or what have you, then that's just a cost of doing business. Your life means absolutely nothing to the typical corporation, other than how it affects its bottom line. I.e., kill off too many of your customers, yes, that would probably be bad for the bottom line. Kill of only enough of them so that the cost of losing those customers is less than the cost of increasing the safety of your product, then that number of deaths is the obviously correct business decision to the typical corporation.

|>oug

Re:I'm excited.

[Darko8472]

Does that mean we'll finally have *PROPER* buffalo wings?!

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

Labeling in Europe does NOT work, and it falls short of what would be considered "pro-consumer." The labeling laws are helpful to keep protected producers more protected. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n1/full/nbt0 106-23b.html

I'm NOT saying everyone should call every manufacturer -- instead, by removing labeling requirements and letting the competitive market give the consumers what they want, we'd see a better choice of quality, price and product numbers. If you and I wanted MORE labeling, we'd go to a store that worked with their producers to verify manufacturing and content, and we'd pay more. The market provides. If John and Jane didn't care at all, they could go to a store that bought the cheapest product -- the store would be the risk bearer in providing what the market wants.

Right now, I _HAVE_ to call because the labeling laws make it difficult to know what I'm eating. In Spring I called 15 "Zero Trans Fats" producers who verified that their products contain trans fats, just levels lower than the law requires (0.5 grams per serving). You might buy those products thinking their safe -- BECAUSE OF THE LAW! I had to take a step because of the law. Ridiculous.

Re:I'm excited.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> I live in the Midwest and we purchase unpasteurized cream locally. It tastes great, it's healthier,

Healthier? Cream is not healthy whatsoever, and unpasteurized cream is therefore more likely to be contaminated with bacteria.

I recall a European guy who's country had banned US vegetables "because of pesticides", which, of course, was really to protect local markets, claim the non-pesticide vegetables tasted better because they had no pesticides. No, they probably taste better because they're picked closer to being ripe, while the US picks theirs when they are hard little rocks so they can be handled with bulldozers without much damage, and thus be shipped, but are too small to ripen properly.

Re:I'm excited.

[Bodrius]

If I am selling an item and you want it, you can NOT know what my costs are, how I make it, or how much it costs me to sit on it until it sells. I can NOT know how much you have in your wallet.

That seems a different issue than the labelings in question.
In a capitalistic society, I may not know what your real costs are, but I definitely want to know what the product IS.

I see the labeling regulations, at best, as a way for government to protect itself against widespread fraud and the costs of dealing with it through other legal processes. There are basic tenets for when a contract is valid, and this makes it easier to read the contract.
People are not buying organic or mass-produced because they want to know the best bargain: they consider "organic" or kosher a completely different product, and if it is mislabeled it is like any other product misrepresentation. If I sell you pork claiming it is a vegetarian dish, for many people "caveat emptor" is not a sensible counter-argument.

As to calling the manufacturers, I generally only have to do it once. 1/2 an hour for a lifetime of consumption is a good investment.

That implies a level of trust in the manufacturer that may take more than 1/2 hour to establish. If you do not trust the labels they use in their product at government's request, trusting the first person on the phone willing to answer is knowledgeable, correct and honest seems a bit naive to me.

In essence, I agree with you that the current labels are useless and counterproductive, and I agree that governments are unlikely to implement them right. That does not mean preventing product misrepresentation was not their responsability in the first place.

The market self-correction I expect to work best is at the consumer-group and retailer level. Assuming this kind of information (product contents and source) is readily and publicly available, the accountability of identifying these products falls on the immediate providers (grocery stores, markets, etc) serving a particular community.
Consumer groups can hold them accountable by reaching and verifying the same type of information, and detecting inconsistencies. Over time, it is in the self-interest of a store to clearly label their products to meet their customer's expectations.

Current labels gives them an excuse not to make that effort, since it is now the government's and manufacturers role.
But ensuring this kind of information is readily provided by manufacturers is the kind of free information flow that is still the role of the government.
The implicit risk of business should be on the bargaining process, not in the contents of the product you buy.

Re:I'm excited.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The BIG problem with 0.5g per serving is WHO sets the serving size?

Exactly. Go look on the side of a delicious Marie Calder's pot pie, and see that it has like 800 calories per serving. And a serving is 1/2 a pot pie!

But man they taste good!

Re:I'm excited.

[nessus42]

I barely read the labels anymore -- I do read the ingredients but I even take that with a grain of salt (no pun intended). For me, I have to see how my body is affected by a new product, and if I don't feel right, I'll not consume that product.

I'm having a really hard time not rolling my eyes here. Your idea of the epitomy of consumer safety is to try something and see how it makes you feel??? Do you actually know anything about science? There are plenty of things that will make you feel great today and kill you in a week or in twenty years.

|>oug

Re:I'm excited.

[drinkypoo]

I absolutely, positively do NOT want government requirements for labeling. If I am concerned with labeling, I will call the manufacturer of the product and ASK. I already do it because I don't consume trans fats (except for naturally occuring ones in beef). The government was "supposed" to regulate trans fat labels, but they haven't.

I disagree. I think that the solution is not to give up on labeling, but to go after the people who are not doing the labeling, find out why, and get them in trouble because it's almost certainly nefarious (or at least illegal.)

Food labeling is a good idea. I don't give a shit about the US RDAs and all that but knowing what the composition of the food is and what's in it is a good thing. I don't believe in banning GMO foods/crops (although I do believe that if the shit blows into some farmer's field, he should be able to harvest and re-seed) but I do believe in labeling. Why not labeling where cloning is involved?

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its debateable what the health benefits/ costs of pasteurization are FYI.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

I disagree. Cream has almost zero carbohydrates (one of the chief causes of diabetes, heart disease and a number of other diseases). I consume the heaviest fattiest cream every day -- and since doing so my blood pressure has dropped, my healthy cholesterol is up and my bad cholesterol is down. Low-fat milk is a murderer -- it creates more diabetes and heart problems than most would believe (mostly because governments aid in lying to the general public).

Since I added healthy fats to my diet, my weight has dropped, my energy level is much higher, and I'm much happier not going through the carbohydrate rush-and-crash-and-hunger routine every day that MOST people go through.

Pasteurization kills off the good organisms and microbes along with the bad ones. Pasteurization also kills off the enzymes which attack the lactose (carbohydrate) which makes the dairy unhealthier due to higher sugar intake as well as the inability to digest the sugars (lactose-intolerance). Pasteurization destroys the Omega-3 fatty acids in milk (you won't find them AT ALL in pasteurized milk) which helps with cancers, memory loss and a host of other problems.

Re:I'm excited.

[ScuxxletButt]

Forcing companies to label properly does NOT work.

Work for what? Keeping a consumer informed? What I don't understand is why producers are so against telling us how we get our food. They are opposed to labling GMOs and now they are opposed to telling us that they'll be using cloned animals of which there are far too many of anyway, cloned or not.

It's like "Free range chickens" They just don't put them in cages. Chickens are still overcrowded, just now in a large open space as opposed to a cage. Growth hormones, antibiotics, niether of which needs to be labled either. When I call the companies, they tell me that the feed and medication are trade secrets, so I'm no more informed calling the companies.

I have no trust in the FDA. This will just make my move to being a vegan much easier.

If the market will really decide and you have confidence that your product is safe, then why hide how it's produced?

Re:I'm excited.

[CRCulver]

You've posted a large amount of comments here so far, most of which are worthless since you assert things without citing any peer-reviewed scholarship. This one is just pure anecdotal evidence. It sure doesn't look like you're trying to sincerely make a case, are you just trying to linkspam for the site in your signature?

Re:I'm excited.

[D. Book]

I absolutely, positively do NOT want government requirements for labeling. If I am concerned with labeling, I will call the manufacturer of the product and ASK. I already do it because I don't consume trans fats (except for naturally occuring ones in beef). The government was "supposed" to regulate trans fat labels, but they haven't. Many items say 0 trans fats but contain a significant amount below 1 gram, and your government allows it to be labeled 0 grams. Nice. That's government at its finest. When I see 0 grams of trans fats, I will call the manufacturer and ask them to confirm the fact that there are zero, and most of the time they'll say "there's a negligible amount" which is the equivalent of saying "yeah, they're in there."

I understand someone calling a manufacturer themselves may give one a sense of self-reliance and individualistic pride, but do you really think that customer service representatives individually responding to millions of incoming enquiries from each consumer would lead to the most accurate dissemination of this sort of information? Knowing most companies, one individual will often get a different answer each time, and the fantasy they may have about suing if they receive inaccurate information certainly won't scare most companies enough to make them devote sufficient resources to responding to individual customer enquiries with the same degree of accuracy as would be required for a label.

And unless a consumer uses an unusually narrow range of produts, they'll be making an awful lot of calls or writing a lot of letters. Twenty, thirty or more on the trans fat issue alone? What happens when product formulations change? Do you have to make fifty phone calls or write thirty letters every three months or so to make sure you have up-to-date information?

That would be extremely inefficient, both for the consumers and companies - far worse than labelling regulations. The only reason companies push for this concept is that they know this concept is a pipe dream - people aren't be so diligent as to make even one call or write one letter, let alone hundreds a year.

If you believe a labelling system is flawed, responding with an absolute opposition to labelling as a concept doesn't make a lot of sense unless you have a government so dysfunctional it makes improvements impossible (in which case, you have much more important issues to devote your efforts to than worrying about trivial amounts of trans fat).

Re:I'm excited.

[Surt]

A lot of people shop at whole foods & earth fare in spite of the higher costs because of the more stringent labelling requirements. It's just that the labels they care about aren't relevant to nutrition for the most part. People care more about the means of production (apparently) than they do about being healthy.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely right. Too poor to pay for the labeled food? Oh well, just buy the stuff you can afford. Why would we want to let poor people have the benefits that rich people do? Anyone who disagrees is a godless Communist. We all know that poor people are poor because they're bad people, so who cares if they can't afford to buy food with labels. The LAST thing we want is the government protecting people in ways that people can't protect themselves.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

I've been accused of that for years. I don't know if peer-reviewed links are really appropriate since MOST Austrian-school supporters don't need socialist peer review to help them see that the free market IS best, and that the regulated market creates massive problems.

No one needs to visit my links, and I even tell my regular readers to use ad-blocking techniques (and most of them do). I even block ads. The ads on my sites pay well enough to support the sites but make no one wealthy.

I know I have helped multitudes over the years at slashdot give up their socialist/Statist views and come to a more Austrian opinion. That is the best profit for me -- to see more people realize that MOST information out there is pro-State/pro-paternalism, so I think my "supporters" or "fans" are already aware of why I post. That's enough for me. If 80% of the people think I'm trolling, the moderators will take care of it. When I first came to slashdot (many years ago), I was considered a troll because EVERYONE was pro-socialist here. Now the balance is getting better, and I am proud to be one of the first to have a contrarian view to the usual geekspeak.

Good question, though, and I am working at making my sites less spammy -- another overhaul pushing the ads towards the bottom of the page will soon happen.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely, positively do NOT want government requirements for labeling. If I am concerned with labeling, I will call the manufacturer of the product and ASK.

Wow, slow down tiger ! Just because you have the time and energy to call the companies doesn't mean that everybody else should do it. I have allergy to certain food ingredients MSG, BHT, artificial sweetners etc., and they are practically present in every packaged food out there ( thank you for screwing with my health food industry )With the food labeling info, I can easily decide while shopping which ones I can eat without having to go through horrific allergy attacks (half of the time , I am not even sure which ingredient causes the attack) Besides Food companies are not like CHASE or T-mobile. they don't have a big customer service department and it would be very difficult for them to handle all the call volume.

Sure, FDA isn't perfect and yes manufacturers can round out the trace ingredients to 0 but that doesnt mean the labeling is completely pointless. And your statement about "organic" means nothing is just as stupid as it can be. I think you are just unware of the fact how badly the cows are mistreated by dairy industry( hormones,cruelty etc.).

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

That's short sighted and DEFINITELY communistic (you said it).

Many poor people in my community don't care about labels, they care about price. If the labeling standards were more open, their food prices would come down -- giving them MORE money to try to get themselves out of the poverty level.

By the way, poor people don't stay poor, and it isn't because of the government. Many stats show that poor people who are driven to succeed do succeed, and in far less than 1 generation. My own family is proof of that -- we were the poorest people in my birth town (where I lived for 13 years), and I'm doing very well, thankyouverymuch, without government aid. I worked hard and continue to do so.

Re:I'm excited.

[CRCulver]

I see. You're not only a spammer, but you claim expertise in a field which, to judge from your stance against formal scholarship, you have no qualifications in, and the missionary tone of your writing, instead of dispassionate commentary, is cult-like.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

So don't call -- shop at stores that do the calling for you. In my SMALL community (halfway between Chicago and Milwaukee, basically hicksville) we have more than 3 dozen health-oriented stores that handle MOST of the work for me.

My reason for a call is to confirm the product DOES contain something bad. If the phone call receptionist says "Yes, they contain XYZ" I say thank you, hang up, and don't buy their product. If they say "No they don't" or "I'm not sure," now I take an additional step to try to verify -- IF I want the product.

Most of our food is fresh and bought locally -- most. The packaged foods we eat we buy from reputable small stores as well as large health food chains (Whole Foods). Whole Foods is run by a libertarian/semi-anarchist who agrees with me that labeling doesn't work. How many socialists buy from a libertarian store like Whole Foods? Many. Why does Whole Foods do what they do? PROFIT -- more profit from happier consumers who CARE.

I'm not saying do away with labeling, I'm saying do away with anti-competitive State-regulations that definitely do more harm than good since the labeling laws cater to companies who want to do harm legally. It also sets a very high barrier to entry for new companies who can't afford the State-required food institutes that diagnose what is in the product. It also confuses consumers who think that "low sugar" means low sugar and "zero trans fats" means zero trans fats -- when those labels are clearly false, but legal.

Re:I'm excited.

[chill]

Forcing companies to label properly doesn't work because lobbying agents for the companies or industry dilutes the legislation. "Organic" doesn't mean anything because of several lawsuits from the dairy industry. They were afraid about competing honestly and openly.

Your calling the companies doesn't mean shit. If they can lie and dissemble on the labels, what is to stop them from doing the same to you on the telephone? Absolutely nothing.

There are several niche farms that grow "all natural" beef, pork and lamb. They don't use any antibiotics, hormones or steroids, are grass fed and can be shipped packaged in any set of cuts you want straight to your door.

There may not be one whit of difference between cloned or not, but damn it if I'm going to eat it I want to KNOW.

Re:I'm excited.

[bracktra]

Good thing you're rich enough to vote with your dollars... not all people have that luxury.

Re:I'm excited.

[kiatoa]

Well, it has been a while since I studied economics but as I remember it economic theory makes the base assumption that information needs to flow efficiently for the economic laws to apply in the ideal sense.

If information is expensive then you end up with an inefficient market. Look at what the net has done to buying electronic goods. I can do a search for reviews, find out technical specifications and prices and make an informed decision about an item before I buy it. That is an efficient market. Making the information difficult to obtain puts power into the hands of the manufacturer. As a consumer I want that information readily available to make my day to day consumer choices. You called the manufacturer a week ago and the product on the shelf manufactured yesterday now has 10x the fat and you don't know it. You are not buying what you thought you were buying and you have zero recourse when you find out you were duped. If the manufacturer lies on their label they risk being caught and being sued.

Anyway, what is the harm in requiring manufacturers to label their products? My wife and I ran a food business and I generated the data and labels for the products. It really wasn't that big a deal and didn't add significantly to the cost of the product. Your stance seems almost fundamentalistic in nature. Who cares whether labeling is socialistic or capitalistic? Which yields a better result for the economy and our quality of life - a requirement to disclose important information up front or the "freedom" to hide the information and make it difficult to obtain, which is historically what manufacturers have done.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me sum it up for you. You're an idiot.

You want the producer to not be required to provide a label that states how much of what is in the product. And you're argument is that the consumer will want it and so the producer will then provide it because the consumer wants it.

You do realize that products did not have the label required in the first place, don't you?

And you ask who sets the serving size? The producer does. And, the producer is required to state the serving size ON THE LABEL. It's usually on the back, BTW. With all of the other nutrional information like amount of fat and sugar and sodium.

So, like I said, you're an idiot. But not only that, you are too lazy to turn over the package and see what it says and realize that it is NOT in the best interest of the company to provide that information. Try finding a Nutritional Information section at McDonalds. Even better, try asking the consumers at McDonalds if they have ever looked for it.

Re:I'm excited.

[Literaphile]

Have you considered the possibility that maybe the bottom line -- money, the economy -- should NOT be the deciding factor in every single thing you do? I'd rather make $50,000 a year and live a good, healthy life eating good food (organic as much as possible at least!) and CARING about what goes into my mouth, than making $150,000 a year, being a penny pincher (which, from your posts, I can see you are), eating low quality junk, and dying when I'm 60. But hey, you've got money, right? Whoop de-do. I'm very happy I don't live in the US, away from money-obsessed nuisances like you. I'll take my quality of living over a few extra bucks any day.

Re:I'm excited.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Cloned animals seems good to me -- if I can get marbled beef at a discount, I'll be happy. If beef jerky comes down even 20% in price, I'll be happy. If creams and cheeses can be made at the same quality for a lower price, I'll be happy.

Except of course they won't. The production of the producing agent, in this case the cloned cow, is higher than the previous cos of simply getting calves the old fashioned way. Productions costs have gone up! And this is before factors like licencing costs, insurance and additional disease control are factored in. Milk from cloned cows is more expensive and will probably forever remain so.

Cloning is the argicultural equivalent of vaporware. All bubble, no squeak. All it can promise is yesterday's quality, today, at a higher price. Isn't this the exact opposite of what innovation is supposed to bring about? I think your rant against government requiring foods to be labeled has skewed your normal interpreation of capitalism. I think you need to check the labels on what you've been smoking.

Re:I'm excited.

[ZeroExistenZ]

I've been running businesses since I was 13

And you're already 14 now, right? :)

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor -- the overall numbers is what matters. One rich person spending $600 on a pound of kobe beef doesn't create a market demand in any huge way. 600 poor people spending $1 on low quality beef DOES create demand, and the beef supplier who sells $2/pound beef will try hard to reduce the price to attract those 600 new customers.

Voting with your dollars works every day -- look at items that have fallen in price even though your voted government destroys the value of the dollar every day with inflationary policies (designed to make the poor more poor and the rich wealthier). Your voted government is the largest cause of poverty in the world -- did you see that 50% of Mexico's stock market is controlled by one family? Sweden's too? http://blog.mises.org/archives/005755.asp That's socialism for you -- as if the poor are helped by it.

Re:I'm excited.

[jdavidb]

No one needs to visit my links, and I even tell my regular readers to use ad-blocking techniques (and most of them do).

I'm one of Adam's most regular readers, and I block ads mercilessly.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

If information is expensive then you end up with an inefficient market. Look at what the net has done to buying electronic goods. I can do a search for reviews, find out technical specifications and prices and make an informed decision about an item before I buy it. That is an efficient market.

Not created by manufacturers but created by the billions of unique decisions of the masses. The State and the Producer had NOTHING to do with this, which is why I believe I am right in my opinion that free flow from producers to consumers DOES NOT MATTER, especially since we have the Net.

Anyway, what is the harm in requiring manufacturers to label their products? My wife and I ran a food business and I generated the data and labels for the products. It really wasn't that big a deal and didn't add significantly to the cost of the product. Your stance seems almost fundamentalistic in nature. Who cares whether labeling is socialistic or capitalistic? Which yields a better result for the economy and our quality of life - a requirement to disclose important information up front or the "freedom" to hide the information and make it difficult to obtain, which is historically what manufacturers have done.

NEITHER. Allowing the producer of an item to sell what the consumer wants is the best way to provide the best product. The State now requires labels to all be consistent, which DOES increase the cost to the producer, making it more expensive for the consumer who doesn't care, and reduces the amount of information for the consumer who DOES care and is willing to pay MORE for MORE information.

Re:I'm excited.

[balsy2001]

His point is that there isn't really any information becuase they get to change all of the parameters to fit what the marketing department tells them will sell the best. Completely usless information is as good as no information.

Re:I'm excited.

[jdavidb]

Nevertheless, he's quite persuasive. Maybe everybody can check things out and see for themselves. What a concept.

(I was an anarcho-capitalist before I met Adam, but he did help fill in some knowledge gaps for me.)

Re:I'm excited.

[Ucklak]

More producing products (cows, in this case) mean more supply of the products I use (cream, cheese and other high fat-low carb dairy products). More supply means lower prices.

The only problem with that argument is that the cows aren't manufactured like tennis balls, they're grown which means that they still have to consume food, get pumped with vitamins, be treated if necessary for diseases and processed.

It would be nice if we could take one cow, put them in a magic machine and hit the big green CLONE button and multiple grown cows come out ready for processing, but that's not happening yet.

My personal take on this is that it's a step for something else. Whatever that is, I'm sure that solution will present itself, I.E., grown filets.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

You're money obsessed, I'm not. Money is irrelevant to me (last year I sold my huge home, sold all my new SUVs, sold my businesses, and basically moved into a white trash neighborhood where I can live happier and cheaper). Money is not the root of all evil, power is. Money is just a medium of trade -- some people want more ability to tender trades, others don't. Everyone can make money, but the State does a fine job of making it difficult for those without money to try to make money. The market is open to all to enter, but the State sets restrictions called "licensing," "regulation," "taxes," "tariffs," "embargoes," and other barriers to entry that make it hard for anyone to compete with those who keep the government in their pocket.

Sorry, but you're just as greedy as anyone else, you just want to force ME to live your way. I want YOU to live how you want to live, and me to live how I want to live. Who's the tyrant here?

Re:I'm excited.

[jdavidb]

Where can I read more about the guy who runs Whole Foods? Is that the founder, John Mackey?

Re:I'm excited.

[The Raven]

I am a Libertarian, and you are an idiot.

Ok, now that the entertainment portion of our evening is over... one of the purposes of a Libertarian government is to enforce truth in advertising. A free market cannot work if the consumer is lied to, so that's one of the prime objectives of a Libertarian government: to enable an honest and informed free market. This means promoting consumer education (and education in general), and enforcing truth in advertising.

Myrddin

Re:I'm excited.

[jdavidb]

Anyway, what is the harm in requiring manufacturers to label their products?

It's a cost. It may seem to be trivial in many cases, but it is not free. It raises the price of the goods slightly. Some people who might have been content with less information at less cost have their option removed. Furthermore, because the product has now met the official government-approved baseline amount of "safe" information to provide, the incentive to provide more information is stifled.

Requiring manufacturers to label their products hurts those who would want more or less information than the amount we or our elected representatives randomly vote to require.

Re:I'm excited.

[nietsch]

Sorry, I seem to have missed the latest diet fad. What do you consider to be 'trans-fats' and why do you consider them to be so bad that you can have none in your diet? Is cholesterol a trans-fat? And what does this have to do with the hysteria over GM food? (what, you can taste those modified genes? Amazing!)

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

Liberty Magazine had a GREAT article on him a few months back, I'll scan the article and stick it on a PDF somewhere for you.

Mises is down, but they had a good article on him here: http://www.mises.org/story/2202

From memory, I don't think they were 100% positive about him, but neither am I.

Oh, here's the cache:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:UKkC6lJU8HIJ:w ww.mises.org/story/2202+john+mackey,+libertarian&h l=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

Re:I'm excited.

[niko9]

Cue Scottish brogue: Well that's the sound your mother made last night Trebek!

Re:I'm excited.

[jdavidb]

Mises is down? Working well from here, although I'm seeing other wholes in the net today.

I also found this, but don't have time to read more than the intro.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

I'm not a libertarian anymore -- I was, but I realized that the Libertarians are still Statists, and they don't realize how evil the State truly is.

Government CAN NOT and HAS NEVER facilitated a safe market. As anarcho-capitalist J David shows in his slashdot reply, government creates a bar that is fairly irrelevant, and it forces those below the bar to pay more for what they want, and forces those above the bar to not get what they want because most producers will stick to the bar so they don't get in trouble with the State. It is a crime to NOT label your product exactly like the FDA/USDA/whoever requires -- even if you add information not required.

Libertarians who want FEDERAL regulations are not libertarians, they're probably pro-market liberals or pro-market conservatives, but not pro-market enough. The Libertarian Party is co-opted now by the big parties, and is a tragedy for the cause of freedom.

Show me ONE area of regulation that the State has truly made better, and has continued to keep better over the long run. SOME regulations may have fixed some temporary new-market problems, but those would get solved by the market anyway. Eventually, the regulation makes it MORE difficult for the market to adapt to supply and demand on both sides of the barter.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely, positively do NOT want government requirements for labeling. If I am concerned with labeling, I will call the manufacturer of the product and ASK. I already do it because I don't consume trans fats (except for naturally occuring ones in beef). The government was "supposed" to regulate trans fat labels, but they haven't. Many items say 0 trans fats but contain a significant amount below 1 gram, and your government allows it to be labeled 0 grams. Nice. That's government at its finest. When I see 0 grams of trans fats, I will call the manufacturer and ask them to confirm the fact that there are zero, and most of the time they'll say "there's a negligible amount" which is the equivalent of saying "yeah, they're in there." No thanks.

You do realize you have been completely sucked in by a bogus marketing ploy don't you?

The zero trans fats fad is a complete and total scam. Trans fats do not matter whatsoever. An unsaturated fat is an unsaturated fat regardless of whether some of the double bonds in the chain (units of unsaturation) are currently in the cis or trans configuration. It matters not to the body, it will burn all unsaturated fats regardless of whether they happen to currently be in a cis or trans configuration. Any fat will be "burnt" two carbon units at a time no matter what. There is restricted rotation around double bonds in unsaturated fats anyway and the current orientation is simply a matter of temperature and environment, plenty of cis fats that you consume may very well oscillate between a cis and trans configuration in the elevated temperature and pH of your digestive system. Add a drink of wine and all kinds of things can happen.

Remember this: Doctors and health professionals are for the most part biologists who have no conception of chemistry or genuine science. The failure rate for health students in their required chemistry courses is usually over 50%.

You have been sucked in. Medicine is not science.

Eat what your body tells you it needs, not what some pretend scientist thinks you should eat (and only becasue they are being paid to think that.)

Trans fats... what a load of crap. I have never heard anything so absurd.

Re:I'm excited.

[bhima]

I think it does matter, I think what the people are doing is as much related to farming as it is to factory work. I'm uncomfortable supporting what I view as an enterprise of questionable ethics and sustainability... so I'm willing to bicycle past the chain grocery to get to a farmer's market. Don't think that I'm doing anything extreme here it's the difference between a 3 and 5 minute ride. I take my family weekly to a few farms just outside the city and I estimate 60% of our food is produced locally with an additional 10% from northern Italy & Slovenia.

Also I think it's an imperative to support people in community; I like living here, I like the people here. In this matter it makes no sense to save 3-7% by making purchases from chain grocers who bring in goods from abroad. In fact with many items you can realize a pretty significant savings, so with our lifestyle it balances out. Besides our local beer, wine, and schnapps is great.

I have recently returned from a 3 month African safari... essentially 3 months with no corporate farmed goods whatsoever. I still can't believe how good the food was! The make biltong out of nearly anything that moves and the process is much less energy intensive, but slower, than jerking meat... it's a drying rather than a cooking. I smuggled 5 kilos of Kudu biltong from an animal I shot back home.

I currently live in Austria but I am a first generation American citizen whose family immigrated from Czech Republic. After 9/11, when the US became so weird, most of my family what the hell we were doing there and moved.

Re:I'm excited.

[ElleyKitten]

Right now, I _HAVE_ to call because the labeling laws make it difficult to know what I'm eating. In Spring I called 15 "Zero Trans Fats" producers who verified that their products contain trans fats, just levels lower than the law requires (0.5 grams per serving). You might buy those products thinking their safe -- BECAUSE OF THE LAW! I had to take a step because of the law. Ridiculous.

You didn't have to do that because of the law. If there was no law, they still wouldn't put the correct amount of trans fats, and you'd still have to call. If anything, you should be arguing that the law should be stricter and require them to put the exact amount, or at least " less than 1 gram" or something. That would at least save you some phone calls.

I don't think removing the laws would give us more or better labels. 90% of people don't read labels, so the companies would stop to save costs. But where would that leave people which obscure allegies, like whey? Not everyone with obscure allergies lives near a health food store that would continue labeling.

Re:I'm excited.

[QMO]

...I'm a very healthy individual, so eating something unhealthy tends to immediately make me feel a little weaker or a little out of whack...

Does this strike anyone else as a little contradictory?

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

Which I am thankful for. For those who receive my ads but aren't ones who normally visit advertisers to make purchases, it dilutes the potential payout for me significantly. Those who don't utilize the ads for purchasing and block them help make the advertising pay better from those who do utilize them. I wish everyone blocked ads who didn't utilize the advertiser.

Personally, I block ads, EXCEPT ON SITES I LIKE (like slashdot). If the advertiser is truly interesting, I always click through to see what they have to sell. If I make a purchase, I always let the advertiser know where I came from, and that I appreciate them supporting the sites I like.

You can't do that with TV, radio or any other form of media. My ad-block runs full time, except on sites I visit regularly and want to support by supporting the advertisers on them.

Re:I'm excited.

[be951]

Truth in labeling can be arguably called broken. There is no way to fix it -- the laws are too complicated...

I wouldn't go that far. My understanding is that if there is less than 1 gram, but more than .5 grams of [fat, protein, saturated fat, etc...] it can be listed as <1. If there is less than .5 gram, it can be listed as zero (which I don't particularly like. If there is any, it should be listed appropriately, e.g. <1 gram). It seems a little shady, but it is just a matter of know the rules. And if you're that concerned about trans fats, just check the ingredient list for things like "shortening", "partially hydrogenated" oils, etc.... You're probably better off going that route than depending on some customer hotline operator 1) knowing the correct answer to your question; and 2) giving the correct answer.

Also, in reference to your previous comment "organic" on a food label has a very specific definition (press release).

I still stick to the fact that the poor around the world are generally BETTER OFF because of advancing in science...

I'll agree with you there.

Re:I'm excited.

[williamhb]

Labeling in Europe does NOT work, and it falls short of what would be considered "pro-consumer." The labeling laws are helpful to keep protected producers more protected. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n1/full/nbt0 106-23b.html

I'm NOT saying everyone should call every manufacturer -- instead, by removing labeling requirements and letting the competitive market give the consumers what they want, we'd see a better choice of quality, price and product numbers. If you and I wanted MORE labeling, we'd go to a store that worked with their producers to verify manufacturing and content, and we'd pay more. The market provides. If John and Jane didn't care at all, they could go to a store that bought the cheapest product -- the store would be the risk bearer in providing what the market wants.

You're on a losing argument trying to suggest European consumers don't want more labelling because the trend, especially in the UK, is that actually consumers do want more labelling, so much so that supermarkets are competing with each other to add labelling that is not legislatively required yet, and even take out national TV adverts for their new labelling schemes. Here's one story on it (note the FSA is making encouraging noises, but it has not legislated). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5133786.stm The Trade Descriptions Act ensures that these labels certainly do have to be accurate, on penalty of very large lawsuits.

You might also care to remember the fuss European consumers kicked up when the US wanted to push GM products (labelled only as "sourced from the US", not as GM) onto the European market. Tesco still require all GM foods to be labelled (and ban GM produce from their own-label foods), and I imagine other UK supermarkets are the same. Good luck hoping the European market won't force labelling of cloned foods on your exporters!

We certainly do like our labels, sunshine, and we're well aware that if food is unlabelled everyone ends up eating the salty fatty processed rubbish because our tastebuds can't tell us the salt/fat/GM/clone content and nobody actually has time to phone the company when they're walking down a supermarket aisle trying to keep three screaming kids quiet while doing the weekly shop.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

I find that writing on Slashdot, my blogs, and writing on other people's forums and blogs helps me cultivate a response to good debate. Many slashdot repliers give me a GREAT opinion that is contrarian to my contrarian opinion. Some of them are persuasive enough to their side of the debate that I have to rethink my side and figure out who is right or wrong from my point of view. This has helped me become MORE anarcho-capitalist because I work through the problem using the new opinions, and discover that often times the most persuasive replies against my opinion are based on Statist studies that don't show the "hidden hand" in the long run. I also prove my beliefs by running successful businesses and charities -- using my system of economic theory. The fact that it works, and convinces many people to change their attitudes after I work for them, is a great way to prove to myself that the Austrians are right, time and again.

My profit comes from response I get -- whether supporting me, debating me, hating me, or just ignoring me. They are all great ways to learn, moreso than going to college and getting a very one-sided view of things.

Re:I'm excited.

[pNutz]

The USDA allows food producers to round down if their products have .5 grams or less of a food component. They can claim that there is 0 grams trans fat if their products contain .2 grams per serving.

So you see, a producer could easily claim that their products claim "ONLY 0.2 GRAMS OF TRANS FAT PER SERVING!!!", gov't regulations do not prevent this. The producers used free market wisdom to keep their consumers uneducated as to the contents of their food. Removing government regulation means no reporting on the trans fat content at all (and no FDA study).

Of course, as an anachno-capitalist, you believe that the corporations of the world, in their unquenchable thirst for wealth, will inadvertently benefit all mankind with the magic of making money for themselves. This is because using their monetary influence to negatively affect consumer education about the ill-effects of their products would just be wrong. This is something they only do because government regulations tell them that they can't. They're like teenagers in this way.

And as to your original point, this is not good news. If this means cheaper beef by increased cattle agriculture, it means a less efficient use of the land. This does not benefit the poor of the world who are already grossly overusing their farmlands and still coming up short of even supplying their people with grain. A greatly decreased consumption of beef would benefit all humanity much better. I don't think the regulation of beef consumption is the answer, but the misinformation that food producers are only too eager to push will not go away or just sort it self out through the market. The incentive that concerned citizens provide them with, with their phone calls and concerned letters, will not outweigh the incentive that the general public provides when it is too lazy, ignorant, or misinformed to stop eating so much beef.

Also, in your link to Nature, the op-ed makes a good point for not repealing all GMO notification laws, but improving testing methods to make them effective.

If you and I wanted MORE labeling, we'd go to a store that worked with their producers to verify manufacturing and content, and we'd pay more.

Grocers like Whole Foods already tout their GM-free wares far above and beyond what regulations require, because their consumers give them the incentive to do so. There's only enough incentive to do this on niche markets (the wealthy), for those educated on the topic enough to have an opinion about GM foods. Do realize that this is not because most consumers don't want labelling, it's because they haven't been informed or they've been misinformed (usually by producers or retailers). The market doesn't care if they are adversely affected in a decade or two.

Re:I'm excited.

[inviolet]

Free flow is NOT capitalistic, in fact it is socialistic. It tries to remove the risk in any transaction -- it is that risk that gives both parties a great reward of feeling like they profited from the barter.

I'm with you on the Capitalism thing, but this is where I can't keep up. I thought that ubiquitous information raised the overall efficiency of any market? Sure, if I lack information, then I might feel like I profited from a barter, even if I objectively did not due to my ignorance about the product.

I suspect you are confusing microeconomics, in which unequal information is the basis of profits, with macroeconomics, in which missing information causes broad inefficiencies.

Re:I'm excited.

[QMO]

Did you know that referencing mises.org decreases the credibility of your post. (On second thought, maybe that was your intention.)

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

If 10% of people have allergies (which your numbers would force me believe), those 10% of people can create a forum or many forums online to discuss what is good and what is bad. Don't tell me that you're not doing that ALREADY. Labels don't help -- actual people who post their experiences (in consuming, or in contacting the manufacturer, or who work for the manufacturer, etc) help. You answered your own question, if you had only have taken the idea further.

Re:I'm excited.

[Quiet_Desperation]

I dunno... I's totally pro-cloning, but even I have no trouble with labeling. I encourage it, in fact. It's up to the manufacturers to sell the idea to the general public. Cloned meat may spend a long time as a niche meat, like the "select" brands you see at the market, but eventually people will learn.

Heh heh heh... niche meat...

Re:I'm excited.

[rhombic]

You should pay more attention, this one has consequences. Cholesterol is not a trans fat, BTW (it's actually not a fat at all; it's a lipid but not a fat.) Personal opinion plays no role, there's a perfectly good chemical definition on whether something is a trans fat or not.

Any unsaturated fatty acid produced naturally in a foodstuff has all cis double bonds. We have enzymes that deal perfectly well with these unsaturated fats. When polyunsaturated fats are partially hydrogenated through chemical means, some of the bonds isomerize to trans rather than cis. We have no enzymes to deal with a trans bond in a fatty acid, so they get treated in some funky ways. One of the impacts is that they appear to cause higher cholesterol, and appear to be much worse for you than even fully saturated fats like lard. Of course, any foodstuff that has less than 1g of trans fat per serving, even if they have 0.99g per serving, can label themselves as "0g trans fat". This stuff is bad for you on the mg scale, and should be labeled like cholsterol on mg's rather than grams, but that's what money will buy ya from the FDA. For a good review, see Zaloga et al, "Trans fatty acids and coronary heart disease", Nutr Clin Pract. 2006 Oct;21(5):505-12.

What do these have to do w/ GM food? Nothing at all ;). I think the analogy is that for years, margarine (which is positively loaded with trans fatty acids) was presented as the healthful alternative to butter. Now it appears that it's much worse for you than butter. Without enough study to understand the real biology of what's going on, jumping to the conclusion that something newly made is good for you is unjustified. FWIW, I have nothing at all against GM foods, or for that matter cloned animals, which aren't necessarily GM'd anyway. Jumping to the conclusion that something new is bad is unjustified, but failing to study new foodstuffs for potential risks and then being willing to drop bad ideas is important too.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you believe that this will lower prices? I think a more possible scenario will be that a new group of multinationals arises delivering cattle or licensing DNA for many dollars. The DNA will be genetic engineered in the future and will be legally protected. (Just like patented DNA for all kinds of plants.) This will make farmers dependent on a small group of multinationals. Which will... lower prices you say?

Of course identical twins are born all the time, but only 2 animals with the same DNA will live for only one life time. With cloning, the same DNA can be around for a much longer time and spreading of the same DNA can happen at a much larger scale. This will have a huge impact on bio diversity.

Moreover, last time I checked, cloning is not without any problems. The DNA will 'get old'. I found this article after a quick search: http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9905/26/dolly.clone.02/ . I am not sure if this still is a problem, though.

Re:I'm excited.

[jdavidb]

A great example for this is the practicing Jewish market for Kosher foods. Labelling laws are inadequate for Kosher standards. It is impossible to discover if a product is Kosher from the required labelling alone. So there's a private, competitive market for Kosher certification and labelling, one which to my knowledge is regulated only the anarcho-capitalist way: by a free market. There have been instances where a product changed and a certification became incorrect, and in these cases the market took care of disseminating the information (and this was pre-Internet, btw). Moreover, the market provided for getting many, many products changed to meet the standard, including Coca-Cola. It's worth reading about some time.

Re:I'm excited.

[OmnipotentEntity]

Firstly, that is a false premise. Not everyone wants profit. There are those of us who are content to get by. There isn't a rule that says you must be consumed with the persuit of wealth.

Secondly, that's two assumptions, that don't necessarily follow eachother. Just because something is profitable doesn't mean the price is going to go down, for example: Oil, Microsoft, Diamonds. In fact, you're dream of a purely competitive society completely breaks down when any one person or group of people gains a large enough share of the wealth. You fail to take into account that perhaps rich people realize that if you keep poor people fighting each other you won't have to worry about them becoming powerful enough to take you on.

Thirdly, the FDA was established for very good reasons, Food Safety and Drug Safety. Perhaps you haven't read enough history, or perhaps you just chose to ignore it. The only critism that can possibly be leveled at the FDA is about their handling of the drug market. But that's just as much the fault of the drug companies themselves, they hyper-advertise driving up their own costs. This point, of course, brings us back to competition gone awry.

Forthly, that is the largest piece of bullshit I have ever heard on slashdot. If you're going to make a claim as sensational as the FDA is unconstitutional you had better be able to back it up.

And finally, the Underwriters Labs have no domestic competition whatsoever. Ironic, isn't it? It certainly functions well. I think you are mistaking indepentent with competitive. The reason why it runs smoothly is because it's well known, it's not an abusive monopoly, and it doesn't go out of it's way to make more money. It's happy making it's own share. Drive for profits? Hardly. And to emphasize, there is NO REASON that a government organization could not theoretically provide that task. However, anti-tax, anti-government maniacs, like the ones we have in the White House now, are going to ax spending, and these service things, like the DMV you like to bring up all the time, are the first ones to get cut. The reason why the DMV is open such short hours isn't because they aren't feeling competitive pressure, it's because they are feeling finacial pressure, because they aren't being properly funded.

Preaching anarchocapitalism is like walking into a greedy, powerful man's noose. It's exactly what they want, because at the end of the day, they are the ones with the overwhelming advantage against you. And you can bet your ass that they are working together.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

The FDA trying to protect itself through bogus articles? Who would have believed that!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html
Talks about the failure of the FDA

http://www.mises.org/story/1805
Playing God at the FDA

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=56& sortorder=articledate
Dangers of Food Safety

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

mises.org seems to be down. www.mises.org seems to be up. At least from here.

Re:I'm excited.

[Literaphile]

Sorry, but you're just as greedy as anyone else, you just want to force ME to live your way. I want YOU to live how you want to live, and me to live how I want to live. Who's the tyrant here?

Erm... I don't believe I tried to force you to do anything. Read my post again, let me know if you still have comprehension problems, and I'll try to clarify it for you.

Re:I'm excited.

[Phat_Tony]

Your point about the effectiveness of labeling laws is right, but I don't think you go far enough with it. You make it sound like the FDA's current labeling laws allow them to avoid mentioning negligible amounts of things, which might not be an important exception, when in fact they specifically allow for products to claim they have none of the majority ingredient.

I didn't write down name brands and exact numbers, but here are some of the things I've seen:

1. "zero-calorie" spray cooking oil, heavily touted in big letters all over the can. The ingredients? All vegetable oil. Same number of calories per unit weight as any other vegetable oil. The trick? The "serving size" was something like "1/64" teaspoon, and if there's less than one calorie per serving, then it's "calorie free" according to the FDA. It doesn't matter that the actual serving size may be a quarter ounce with 60 calories. This is specifically done in accordance with FDA guidelines, and they've been doing this for years without being cracked down on.

2. "no trans fat" foods that are almost entirely trans-fat. Particularly a tub of margarine with "no trans fat" written all over it, where the first and primary ingredient was hydrogenated soybean oil. Again, the serving size was something arbitrarily small to make sure there wasn't an entire gram of trans fat in whatever unrealistic, never-used micro-serving they came up with as a "serving size."

3. You can only advertise things as being healthy if they're bad for you. For example, you can only advertise "low fat" or "fat free" or "high in vitamins" if you artifically made it that way where it otherwise wasn't. So grocery stores are filled with low-fat cookies, sugar-free cakes, diet sodas, etc., where it's basically illegal to claim that fruits and vegetables are healthy. If you reduce cream cheese to a mere 20% fat content, it's "low-fat," but the naturally 1% fat mozzarella on the shelf next to it can not be advertised as "low fat." This has been improved greatly in the past few years by the FDA beginning to allow the label "naturally [whatever]" (naturally low in fat), but for most of the 90's, you couldn't make nutritional claims about things being healthy if they were supposed to be that way. Thus stores were full of "special diet" cookies that were still immeasurably worse for you than the whole wheat bread they couldn't make claims about.

4. The FDA mandates how nutritional labels are broken down and what they say. So a company that was on the ball about recent research in nutrition, and wanted to break their label out to show the percent of carbs in each category by glycemic index, would not be allowed to do so. One that wanted to break out the fats into polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, saturated, and hydrogenated would have been unable to do so before the FDA witched from forbidding it to mandating it. Yes, manufacturers probably could have put an entirely separate nutritional label in addition to the government one, but this would probably clutter the already busy packaging and be confusing to customers who have two different labels labeling the fat in different ways, as opposed to the standard label with the familiar total, and a few lines added breaking down where that total came from. Basically, it's illegal to innovate in food nutritional labeling, because the FDA mandates exactly how it must be done. They could mandate that the information provided "meets or exceeds" certain standards, but they don't. This is probably due to lobbying on the part of big agribusiness, that doesn't want to face competition in labeling from organic and health food companies who want to put better labels on their products.

I think the biggest problem here is that the government has control over this at all, so what goes on our labels is decided by bureaucrats and lobbyists, not consumer demand and a competitive market place. Take Hong Kong, with no consumer labeling laws. Most products have excellent labels, meeting or exceeding those in the US. But there are

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

your remarks are astounding - you justify this with stamping out hunger, coz yeah thats really been the case up to now with technological advance.
You sound like you work for these people.
Take a trip to europe - labeling can work when enforced, but I doubt you live in a country where this happens.
Personaly I believe the consumer should have a CHOICE here

Enjoy your cloned beef jerky idiot

Re:I'm excited.

[TubeSteak]

Right now, I _HAVE_ to call because the labeling laws make it difficult to know what I'm eating. In Spring I called 15 "Zero Trans Fats" producers who verified that their products contain trans fats, just levels lower than the law requires (0.5 grams per serving). You might buy those products thinking their safe -- BECAUSE OF THE LAW!

Is .5 grams per serving unsafe?
Are you allergic to the stuff?

Other than being pedantic, why does it matter?
I assume that the FDA decided .5 grams per serving wasn't worth reporting for a reason

I'm not trolling, I'd really like to know why you're so stuck on this .5 grams issue. I understand that your general position is "every man for himself," but IMHO, it isn't a practical goal to pursue. I can't be an expert in everything.

If you and I wanted MORE labeling, we'd go to a store that worked with their producers to verify manufacturing and content, and we'd pay more.

Isn't that kinda what the FDA does? verifies manufacturing and content? If you want more stringent requirements, there are stores which already cater to that market.

Banning transfats altogether seems a more reasonable idea. MFGs will have to tweak their recipes to account for the different formulas and thats about it. The only people who will lose out are the transfat sellers.

Re:I'm excited.

[GreyPoopon]

I live in the Midwest and we purchase unpasteurized cream locally. It tastes great, it's healthier, and it's cheaper.

OK, please educate me. How can you say that unpasteurized cream is healthier? I agree that it tastes better and ought to be cheaper because there is less work to be done before the cream makes it to the consumer. However, in my understanding, the pasteurization process involves heating the cream to a high enough temperature to kill most of the bacteria in it. Although this process impacts the taste, it ought to make the resulting product healthier... unless you subscribe to the philosophy that ingesting some of the bacteria improves your immune system.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please crawl under that rock you came out from.

Oh, soapboxing is soooo 90's.

Re:I'm excited.

[dada21]

Trans fats, in my opinion and that my of 83 year old doctor (who smokes, drinks, and is on his fourth wife). He's not pro-AMA (government/corporate collusion) but is a registered AAPS doctor (who doesn't even accept medicare, medicaid or ANY insurance). He also does house calls and accepts tips. The guy knows his stuff and he saved me from my 192 lb, high blood pressure, bad memory problems by helping me find the dietary requirements I needed.

Trans fats might be the cause of big heart disease issues (which I have to pay for because of government-required insurance and welfare) and other issues, too. I prefer to eat zero, except what naturally occurs in beef.

0.5g per serving is not a real figure because the serving sizes are sometimes cut down in order to get the trans fat figure below 0.5 so they can say "Zero Trans Fats." As I said in another reply to this thread (somewhere), if they have a 60 gram serving size with 0.6g of trans fats, they can make the serving size 49 grams so they can now say "Zero Trans Fats" on the label. That's the State regulation for you -- false and endearing to the large industry powerhouses who support these labeling laws for their own power.

Re:I'm excited.

[mcostas]

I love how people talk about things like this as a solution to world hunger and helping starving people. That's a pretty sick joke when you realize how horribly inefficient, unsunstainable, and unncecessary livestock and meat production is from a food standpoint. If you cared about world hunger (or human health), you'd be vegan, not trying to sell meat to poor people.

Re:I'm excited.

[RexRhino]

The law IS a powerful instrument. So can we expect these FDA regulations to be as effective as our 100 billion dollar and millions in prisons War on Drugs? Or should we expect it to be as successful as our military victory in Iraq? As successful as our public education system? As successful as Amtrack? I am sure the FDA website provides as impartial and accurate information about our victories against tainted food, as does the DEA website about our victory over the drug scourge.

the only way of ensuring that right is honoured is to have legal sanctions against lieing about what is being sold, and uniform labelling standards are by far the most efficient way of doing this.

I hear you on laws against fraud, but why standardized food labeling? You realize there are all sorts of specialty foods, for diabetics, vegans, low-carb diets, Hallal or Kosher, macrobiotics etc., and each could use a food labeling system more specialized for their niche market. If you are worried about meat monoculture, why aren't you worried about labeling monoculture?

Re:I'm excited.

[Teh_Chris]

Okay, this won't make as much sense unless you read a bunch of other comments first, but I think it's time for a wee reminder from that related article:

How much does it cost to clone a cow? Around $15,000, versus $2,000 to produce a naturally bred animal. But the quality of the clone should be a surer bet.

Cloning as a production method is more difficult and expensive than normal, not less. On the whole, I can't imagine it improving the general quality much either. The FDA is in the right in saying it's safe, as it's not really hurting anything, and frankly I don't really care either way about which sort of cow I'm digesting. But it's still a silly idea in general.

Re:I'm excited.

[xappax]

Kill of only enough of them so that the cost of losing those customers is less than the cost of increasing the safety of your product, then that number of deaths is the obviously correct business decision to the typical corporation.

Not to mention killing non-customers! There's almost 0 disincentive for that. Bonus if they're poor people in the third world, your consumers aren't likely to know anyone living there.
I mean seriously - from a business standpoint, killing off your competitors' customers could even be seen as a profitable move!

Re:I'm excited.

[Eravnrekaree]

The means of production does affect the foods nutritional value. If the food is grown in dead, nutrient starved soil, its not going to have as many nutrients. As well, we arent only concerned about whats in the food but whats not in it, we dont want pesticides and other nasty things in the food. I believe in both the precautionary principle, that when introducing exotic new technology, we should be safe rather than sorry and keep it off shelves until it is proven safe, by an independant party (not a corporate controlled one like the FDA which cares more about corporate profits than peoples health), and as well that humans have evolved for thousands of years to handle certian types of food. When we start adding in things that we have not eaten before, strange new chemicals, the body is not as well prepared to process these, and it may even be harmful. Technology is great in computers, but not on my plate.

Re:I'm excited.

[Oligonicella]

Baloney. Provide a cite. If you were concerned, you'd be lobbying for labels indicating if the animal was artifically inseminated, transported in the uterus of a rabbit or any number of other 'unnatural' things that are done to expidite bovine rearing.

Re:I'm excited.

[Eravnrekaree]

Labelling does work and allows consumers to be aware of the food that they are putting into their bodies. After all, its their bodies and no one elses, they should have a right to know whats going into it. Unless there is a legal requirement, companies are not required to tell you what is in their products. I have tried calling companies before and often they are clueless, the people on the phone, or they told me "thats a secret, i cant tell you". Many people do not have time to call and fight with these phone representatives, having labelling makes it much more certain to consumers what the product contains. The labelling requirement would also work backwards through the supply chain, so intermediate suppliers would know what a product contains or how it is produced, and thus can more easily make choices about whether or not to include it in their product. It makes giving people a choice eisier by making it eisier for manufacturers to give people a choice of different products through the required record keeping and labelling avialable at all levels of the supply chain.

I also think this cloning technology is not in the best interest of the consumer. Particularly it will improve corporate profits, but does so at the expense of the well being of the animals, perhaps even the consumer. I think it will actually lock farmers into the control of these corporations, once they have switched to clones, they will no longer have a sufficient breeding population to breed their own cattle. Think about what this technology will do. It will replace the vast and deverse genetic base of cattle with one copy of genetic material, making cattl breeding impossible and requiring farmers to go to these corporations to get cattle. The corporations can then charge whatever they want, even patent the cattle. As more farmers use the technology, it will be harder for a farmer to find another farmer who has a cattle he can breed his cattle with.

Re:I'm excited.

[Descalzo]

Not necessarily. Let's make a bad car analogy. If I am a superdriver, and know my car inside and out, and have been driving this car for years, and know every nut and bolt, I am a good driver. If something minor goes wrong, I will notice.

Conversely, if I do not take care of my car, then when I lose my muffler or knock a hole in the bottom of my transmission, I might not even notice, or maybe I'll notice and think, "Oh, a new smell. Cool!"

A better analogy would be an olympic runner vs. me. The olympian might notice if his shoes are a little too heavy, but I probably wouldn't.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cream has almost zero carbohydrates (one of the chief causes of diabetes, heart disease and a number of other diseases)

Yes, I think I'll just stop eating pasta, and go on a high fat diet; that should definitely help me finish that 10K... You must be joking.

I consume the heaviest fattiest cream every day -- and since doing so my blood pressure has dropped, my healthy cholesterol is up and my bad cholesterol is down.

Nice anecdote, but I think most people's bodies will not respond in the same way as yours.

Low-fat milk is a murderer -- it creates more diabetes and heart problems than most would believe (mostly because governments aid in lying to the general public).

Maybe you should provide some proof of this to convince me; there is a reason why the healthiest individuals in America (runners, athletes, etc.) stay away from whole milk.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, when was anyone able to contact the food producers and find out if their products contained GMOs (or more specifically GE foods)? Last time I checked, if some food producer even wanted to label "No GE ingredients" on a legitimate non-GE product in Canada, this would be breaking the law since the processes to validate this are supposedly impractical and are not in place. GE foods as a resource typically are processed with non-GE products and I assume this would be the same with cloned animal products.

The economic benefits to poor countries highlighted could be acheived through other means. I would think that in these countries that proper irrigation and improved farming practices would also provide benefits. The net benefit highlighted here is hypothetical. Maybe there is no gain. Maybe there is a higher net gain using other processes.

There are benefits to new approaches to food production. But sometimes, like in the case of trans fat, the risks are not readily apparent since the time or sample size to evaluate the risks are not available. Yes, opponents can sometimes be hysterical in their views but proponents often see things through rose coloured glasses. I will opt for the cautionary approach to this. I was already thinking about getting beef from a local farmer and this probably encourages me even more to do this.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

When have you ever known a more efficient production to yeild savings to the consumer? All it means is that the supplier can make more money! Come on now, let's be real here.

Re:I'm excited.

[LordNimon]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201141&cid=164 70473

Re:I'm excited.

[ElleyKitten]

It wasn't a statistic. Anyways, people with allergies don't have the same allergies. If 10% of people have allergies, then maybe 2% are allergic to peanuts, 1% to shellfish, .25% to whey, or whatever. If the peanut allergy group researches 80 billion products for peanut residue, that doesn't help one who's allergic to whey.

Labels help A LOT. I had a friend growing up who was allergic to whey, corn, and milk. Did she go online and find lists of safe foods from message boards and hope the manufacturer didn't change the ingredients since the reported it? Well, she didn't have internet access then, so no. She read the labels. Now, I'm a vegetarian, and I read labels all the time to see if something has an obsure meat product in it. I don't want to have to read message boards or call companies before I buy any food. I just don't have the time to do that. I'm sorry labels don't cover your needs. They cover mine, and I sure don't want to give that up.

Re:I'm excited.

[ElleyKitten]

Jews tend to be much more of a community than say, those with shellfish allergies. I'm allergic to shellfish, and I can't name one other person I know with that allergy or web forum or anything else to meet and talk with other people with that allergy. I imagine few kosher keeping Jews would say they've never met another kosher keeping Jew and had no idea how to find one.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the most powerful government in the history of organized coercion, and one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world, we are now eating things like plastic cheese (ever been to McDonald's?), cow brains and intestines (ever ate a hot dog?), and "health foods" that contain more artificial than natural ingredients. And now, the USDA is diluting the organic concept by allowing all sorts of exceptions to be listed under its "certified organic" label. You might see progress in this, but I certainly don't.

Re:I'm excited.

[GungaDan]

"Show me ONE area of regulation that the State has truly made better"

Seat belts.

Next?

Re:I'm excited.

[n00854180t]

You do realize you just made a case against requirements, then shot down your own method (calling manufacturers) because it doesn't work, right? So, which is it then? Call companies, or the companies are all liars and requiring them not to lie wouldn't work anyway, thereby making calling them pointless in the first place. It'd be nice if you followed your own logic, at the VERY least.

Re:I'm excited.

[Fordiman]

Dada, I usually agree with you, but I've got to poke at this one:

"The equal free flow of information is absolutely UNNECESSARY and uncompetitive."

The SEC would disagree with you; they've got a number of regulations that ensure the free flow of information (transparency regulations), and severe punishments for those who would have information flow more freely for themselves than others (anti-insider trading laws).

But that's OK. You don't necessarily agree with existing laws and policies. Neither do I, so that's fair. Meanwhile, I have to say that the free flow of information is absolutely necessary for a working free market; given asymmetric information about a given good or service, the buyer or seller is in a position to be conned.

Now, in a perfect free market, the person in power wouldn't con their customer; they want repeat business, they want reputation, and, ultimately, they want continued cash flow. Meanwhile, a sufficient stream of businessmen aren't that intuitive. They're in it for the money, and they'll con their customer as soon as look at them. And, likely, quickly, they'll go out of business - only to be replaced at speed with a different man of similar intelligence and ideas.

Unfortunately, the free market does nothing to weed out used car salesmen.

So, sometimes we have transparency regulations, to correct the market failure of asymmetric information.

Your later example (a process by which your business operates) is protected by trade secret law, and not actually relevant to the labeling question. Still, given that your competitor knows what you do and how you do it, what's stopping him from improving the product? What stops you then from stealing the improvement and improving upon that? Free information flow, in this aspect, is hard to see as anticompetitive. That is, until you realize that the speed of the cycle of competition - and the costs associated with it - grow amazingly fast. Only those who are able to fund amazing amounts of R&D, or who are able to cut R&D costs dramatically, will survive. The result in either case is the same: a small group of large businesses in control of a market.

Of course, the paracontestable oligopoly market is apparent in a number of places, especially in the technological sector, where entry costs are high and rising. It shows up whether process information flow is free or not. However, when process information flow *IS* free, what comes out of the process of a new market developing into an oligopoly (and possibly monopoly) is that the market's technology advances far faster than with no information flow. This is, of course, just all the stuff that happens before the upstarts move in and render the paracontestable market contestable again, usually due to some advancement in an only peripherally related technology.

I'm getting more into the hippie 'information wants to be free, man' line. To be honest, I don't really believe that. Until it becomes economically desirable for information to be libre, the only free information will stem from those with a passion for spreading knowledge - even if it is socially beneficial for information to be free.

Re:I'm excited.

[radtea]

State-licensing makes things worse, more expensive and slower. See DMV for proof.

Some A are B does not imply all A are B, so your "proof" is lacking in logical strength, particularly in the face of the many cases, such as food quality standards and inspections, that have dramatically improved the situation they were intended to dramatically improve.

Of course, by the same token, not all forms of state licensing improves things. But there is no doubt in the mind of any rational individual that it does sometimes improve things.

Re:I'm excited.

[An Onerous Coward]

You're kept "healthy, slim, and energized" by beef, cream, and cheese?

You think that having everyone call up and ask the manufacturer what's in their product is a superior system for distributing nutritional information?

You refuse to eat even a single gram of trans-fats, to the point that you call for confirmation when the label says zero grams? Hint: they occur naturally in the beef and cheese that you love so very very much.

My god, have you ever once written a post that you actually believed?

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

>More supply means lower prices.

If you're in the U.S., you should be aware that the Government props up milk prices already. In other words, more supply just means higher profits for your friendly neighborhood dairy association.

Got bilk?

Re:I'm excited.

[fahrbot-bot]

Your idea of the epitomy of consumer safety is to try something and see how it makes you feel? ... There are plenty of things that will make you feel great today and kill you in a week or in twenty years.

Or in a few minutes... Mmmmm, this smells like almonds.

Re:I'm excited.

[radtea]

Right now, I _HAVE_ to call because the labeling laws make it difficult to know what I'm eating. In Spring I called 15 "Zero Trans Fats" producers who verified that their products contain trans fats, just levels lower than the law requires (0.5 grams per serving). You might buy those products thinking their safe -- BECAUSE OF THE LAW! I had to take a step because of the law. Ridiculous

There is no law preventing producers from labelling their products accurately. They are allowed by current law to label things with less than 1 g of trans fat per serving as zero, but they are not required to do so.

So what you're telling us is: in the absence of laws forcing producers to label their products accurately, they will lie to consumers about the contents of their products.

The market in product labelling is perfectly free within the bounds set by current labelling laws. That is, beyond the government's minimum labelling requirements producers are perfectly free to tell the truth in greater detail about their products. You are pointing out that within this perfectly free market, producers are not in the least bit interested in providing labelling that is more accurate than the least-accurate labelling permitted by law.

This is what those of us in the reality-based community call a "fact", and most people at this point feel justified in concluding on the basis of this fact that if there were no labelling laws, producers would lie to a much greater degree. After all, in the absence of law, what's to stop someone from labelling anything as "zero grams trans fats"? If the FDA hadn't been there to raise concerns about Vioxx killing people Merck would have never pulled it from the market--it would be far more economically efficient to just fight a war of lies and obfuscation.

Re:I'm excited.

[An Onerous Coward]

Unequal information isn't the basis of profit. Different needs, and different access to resources is. When person X makes a profit because person Y lacks information that person X has, it's not capitalism; it's just screwing somebody.

Re:I'm excited.

[phlinn]

Arguable, but the real issue is defining better of course. Adding seat belts increases the cost of vehicles, so perhaps I would be better in my opinion having saved the cost of those seat belts since I've never been in a crash. This is purely hypothetical, I personally would rather pay the cost and have the belts. Given that the net effect on highway deaths per person per mile is not well documented, you may want to come up with something better than a two word item.

Re:I'm excited.

[Qzukk]

That has to be the stupidest article I've ever seen. I have no idea why Nature ever ran that piece of junk.

what does "0.9% of the food ingredients" mean in terms of genes? Or, put another way, how to translate the gross generic definition of "ingredient" into something making sense at the molecular level?

It doesn't mean anything at the "molecular level". If you have a bag of cornmeal and 0.5% of the corn contained in that bag was genetically modified (whether 0.0001% of the genes came from a fish or 99.9% of them came from a cow) then the law says you don't have to label that bag as GM food. If you have an ear of corn, it was either genetically modified or not. Arguing over calling an ear of corn "partially" modified is like taking a Jaguar hood ornament, gluing it to the front of a Honda, and arguing over whether you should sell the result as an S Type. And no, I don't believe GM food will cause me to grow a third arm or something. That doesn't make this particular argument any less drool-inducingly stupid.

I had to take a step because of the law.

You'd have had to take the step without the law anyways. Blaming the law for you having a higher standard than the majority of the public is also stupid. So lets say there were no laws: either the company would not put any label on it, in which case you (or someone you trusted) would have to call anyway, or they'd put the exact same zero trans fat label on there, in which case you (or someone you trusted) would have to call anyway. Nothing changes, and the company saves a whopping 0.0003 cents per package on the ink.

Re:I'm excited.

[An Onerous Coward]

Many stats show that poor people who are driven to succeed do succeed

Wow.

Are these the same stats that show that people who work really hard at being good basketball players become taller?

You heard right, folks: dada just invoked the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to show that the poor deserve their miserable lot in life. Anyone who is poor must be lazy, because everyone who is not lazy is not poor. What about this guy who... Nope, must be lazy.

I'll not question the implicit assumption that those in society who deserve the best life are those who exhibit the most raw, ruthless, and naked ambition. Because our society is founded on the glorious principle of "get whatever you can, from whoever you can, whenever you can, and expect the same treatment in return." God bless you, dada, for your clear insight, for understanding that what this world needs is more greedy assholes.

Re:I'm excited.

[drsquare]

It also gets rid of a lot of stuff that's good for you. And not all bacteria is bad. Even the bad bacteria, unless it makes you ill, WILL improve your immune system.

Re:I'm excited.

[An Onerous Coward]

What is the FDA doing to stop vegans from getting the extra information that they need? Nothing.

The FDA is simply requiring a certain amount of information that nutritionists generally agree is necessary to make informed health decisions. If you're trying to attract the kosher market, you go through whatever certification that requires, and you put it elsewhere on the packaging.

I'm not sure what additional data you would put in for low-carb and diabetic shoppers.

As far as I'm concerned, the big problem with the FDA is that their nutritional guidelines are far too friendly to the meat and dairy industry. If they were working solely on the basis of a maximally healthy diet, they'd be screaming from the rooftops that too much meat will kill you dead.

Re:I'm excited.

[An Onerous Coward]

Your first source claims that the intent of Congress was to reduce the risk of using pharmeceuticals to zero, and that the FDA has failed because the risk of using pharmeceuticals is not zero. Without the FDA, he adds, the threat of litigation will successfully keep our drugs safe and effective.

With intellectual lights like these, no wonder you strike me as being so dim.

Re:I'm excited.

[nilknarf]

It would be very cheap because it is illegel to sell unpasteurized dairy products.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Paranoid libertarian magic-pixie-land fantasies from a flyover-state "entrepeneur". ("entrepeneur" translated: unemployable, always blames his own failure on "the market".)

Why don't you just go ahead and write a manifesto, dada?

Re:I'm excited.

[jacksonj04]

Hang on, if the meal is a pre-prepared one (For example a microwaveable dinner) then the serving size is, by definition, 100% of the product. You cannot take something like that and say "It's a 60g meal, but a serving is only 49g" unless it is designed to be seperated, for example a tin of preprocessed vegetables (Poor example for trans-fats I know).

Re:I'm excited.

[maxume]

So information isn't a resource?

Re:I'm excited.

[An Onerous Coward]

Your first two examples are bogus.

The reason for #3 is pretty obvious: If all macaroni is FAT FREE, then saying that your Kraft Macaroni is FAT FREE is confusing consumers. They are allowed to say "macaroni is a fat free food," and even allowed to tout this as a key selling point. What they can't do is try to use this information to differentiate themselves from other macaroni on the market.

For #4, you suggest the solution yourself: Have the extra information in a separate location on the package. You'll be hard-pressed to convince me that the FDA's demand for a certain amount of packaging space is a big deal. I do think you're right about them needing to switch to a "meets or exceeds" mode, even though there might be abuses.

You're also right that there aren't sufficient allowances for small farms and producers, and for setups that don't meet the FDA's expectations (The Omnivore's Dilemma has an interesting example there, with an organic farm that did its slaughtering outdoors. Since they couldn't get the FDA to sign off on a seemingly safe and healthy practice, they were limited to selling meat directly to consumers.)

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

It may impact price, but it will have almost no impact on quality which is already uniformly low in the average supermarket.

Do these "impacts" leave craters? Oh but wait, how can one have an "impact" crater on a price or quality?

I wonder if perhaps you meant to use the words affect and effect? Or would that be too correct and dull?

Actually your sentence is a perfect example of how the two are properly used:

It may affect price, but it will have almost no effect on quality which is already uniformly low in the average supermarket.

I sometimes wonder what happened to these words. When did they drop out of the english language? When did impact stop meaning a collision of objects?

I'd bet you "prioritize" your todo list because priorizing it would also be be too dull and correct.

Re:I'm excited.

[Phat_Tony]

Right, my first two examples are bogus. I'm just hallucinating when I go to peapod.com and they're selling six different kinds of "fat free" and/or "no calorie" cooking sprays that all consist almost entirely of fat.

All the dozens of other sources on the web that it's easy to Google up who are also complaining about this problem are also hallucinating with me. And the FDA's been allowing this for years despite consumer complaints. Some big companies like Coke, Pepsi, and Kraft are revising their labels voluntarily because of consumer complaints about the misleading labels resulting from the FDA's guidelines.

Can you be more specific as to how this is bogus? Your linked page indicates that the FDA has serving size guidelines for some products. Admittedly, that is part of the problem. But I would think that, for my claims to be bogus, the products I'd mentioned would not be on the market with their lying labels for years, and currently available, despite complaints.

The FDA only suggests serving size information for some foods, and their suggestions are often misleading- like two oz of pasta being a serving. But they don't recommend serving sizes for many foods, and they don't enforce the sizes for foods for which they have guidelines, and their guidelines lead to plenty of misleading labels on their own. But while the serving size guidelines are wishy-washy, they're perfectly clear on the point that if there's less that .5 grams of fat "per serving" in a product, they can call it fat free, regardless of how much fat is in the container.

Re:I'm excited.

[Crunchie Frog]

http://www.allergicliving.com/forum/viewforum.php? f=5&sid=f5a189a70030f7781517e8447702b850

You're welcome.

Re:I'm excited.

[slughead]

You're going to call up every company for every product that you buy? And then expect to reach someone who will know the answer? And even if they do know the answer, you expect them to give you a truthful one?

If they don't it's fraud. They can be sued.

Without regulation, your hair dye would contain toxic amounts of lead. Oh, wait a minute -- it currently does!

If having lead in your hair caused any diseases, companies would stop to keep from getting sued.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless, of course, the market is neatly divided into something approaching the political division - that is to say, a small number of large corporations that own the vast majority of the market.

Re:I'm excited.

[RobertLTux]

the trick is to kill your clients slowly enough that they breed first (and of course sell drugs)

Re:I'm excited.

[Ninjaesque One]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=imp act 81 years ago.

Re:I'm excited.

[GreyPoopon]

It also gets rid of a lot of stuff that's good for you.

Can you be specific? I'd never heard that it gets rid of anything. I know that it changes some of the molecules (adding energy will do that).

Even the bad bacteria, unless it makes you ill, WILL improve your immune system.

While this is true, you have to balance this against what happens when a particular nasty bacteria gets into you.

Re:I'm excited.

[nessus42]

You're going to call up every company for every product that you buy? And then expect to reach someone who will know the answer? And even if they do know the answer, you expect them to give you a truthful one?

If they don't it's fraud. They can be sued.

If someone catches them and can prove it, both of which are relatively unlikely. Companies do illegal and imoral things all the time, and if they get caught, they pay the fine and mark it down as a cost of doing business.

If having lead in your hair caused any diseases, companies would stop to keep from getting sued.

Yeah, right. On Planet Slughead, maybe. On Earth on the other hand, they don't stop until the actual cost of getting sued ends up being more expensive than the cost of continuing business as usual.

The last time I used a hair dye with lead acetate in it, I could taste the lead in my mouth within a minute or two of putting the dye on my head. Does that sound safe to you? And the toxic fumes from a new carpet once made me sick for two years following exposure.

|>oug

Re:I'm excited.

[RobertLTux]

i think that what you are talking about only hits if either a size or distance threshold gets passed
so that half gallon of raw milk is legal if you could be introduced to the cow that made it

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats wrong with pork damnit. Its tasy, and no one ever mentions it. Just curious.

Re:I'm excited.

[lptport1]

Just look for partially hydrogenated oils. It's a pretty good indicator that there are trans fats in the product. Regardless of their labeling tricks.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

did you see that 50% of Mexico's stock market is controlled by one family? Sweden's too? http://blog.mises.org/archives/005755.asp That's socialism for you

That sounds more like capitalism to me. The people who have money buy things, the people that don't have money don't buy things, whether it's old beef thats been bleached so it doesn't stink so bad, or stocks. Consider the US, where the vast majority of publically traded stocks are actually held by other companies, relegating human beings to bit players who basically gamble on the popularity of a company in all but the rare cases of a dividend. Why should I buy stocks, if I have no actual voice in the company (and hell, with corporate charters as they are now, even if I had a voting share, that gives me the right to vote as long as I vote "Yes")

Maybe someone should explain to the mexicans and swedes why they should be gambling their money on the stock market so that they too can have the pleasure of owning a piece of paper that says they own a chunk of a company, but that they can't actually redeem for any piece of that company, and can only hope that they can sucker some other loser into paying more for this piece of paper than they did, then people might actually participate in the market.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just earned my "most ignorant and stupid retard of the week" award. Where the hell have you been during the last DECADE of health and diet science? Trans-fats or 'hydrogenated' fats are SOLELY a product of human caused processing of food products.

Do a google search on them you blowhole.

Re:I'm excited.

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole ford pinto fiasco where the company "ran the numbers" and found it cheaper to let customers die in accidents caused by known safety issues and pay out "average" liability awards instead of actually fixing those problems is a perfect example.

Eh.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the fun in eating the exact same meal day-in, day-out?

Re:Eh.

[El Torico]

What's the fun in eating the exact same meal day-in, day-out?

It's the culinary equivalent of marriage.

Re:Eh.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that would be a crash diet. Same thing day-in, day-out implies that the "thing" in question is being provided :-)

Re:Eh.

[PorkNutz]

You really need to learn to cook. Just because you start with the same main ingredient, it does not mean you have to end with the same dish. Not only are there different ways to prepare the same cut with varied techniques and seasoning, giving you different flavors and textures, but there are different cuts that have different flavors and textures all on their own. Add to it that this cloning applies not just to cows, but to pork, chicken, duck, turkey etc.... There is absolutely NO reason to eat the same meal over and over. That is, of course, unless you buy all your meals from McDonald's.

Re:Eh.

[Arterion]

So it's illegal for gay people not to swap up their meals?

And MacDonald's announces

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

a buy one get one free special

I'll admit it

[smooth wombat]

When I first read the headline I thought it said, "FDA Set To Approve Products from Cloned Clowns"

Re:I'll admit it

[Bizzeh]

i read "FDA Set To Approve Products from Clown Cars" for some reason

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome our new mutant cow cloned food stuffs.

GM-Tastic.

Clowns

[Kadin2048]

Nah, they're way too tough and stringy.

Re:Clowns

[Rob T Firefly]

But they do somehow fit an awful lot of patties into a single bun. Mmmm, clownburgers...

Re:Clowns

[techpawn]

I heard they taste funny anyway

Re:Clowns

[Anonymous Coward]

plus they taste funny.

Re:Clowns

[JonTurner]

So these two cannibals are eating a clown when one turns to the other and asks "does this taste funny to you?"

(Sorry... I just told this joke on /. a week ago, but it was just too good an opportunity to pass up!)

Re:Clowns

[tehcyder]

So these two cannibals are eating a clown when one turns to the other and asks "does this taste funny to you?"

And the other says "nope, clowns are never funny."

As long as...

[aXis100]

As long as there is a stong distinction between trans-genic GM products and cloned products, Im all for it.

Personally I'm fairly comfortable with GM products, but realise that many people have well founded fears (new food alergies, genie out of the bottle etc). Unfortunately many uninformed people will treat clones the same and make an issue due to FUD.

Bring on the clones I say, this can only be a win for quality and value.

Re:As long as...

[CastrTroy]

Everything you eat is genetically modified. Selective breeding is a form of genetically modifying the food you eat. We have been doing it for so long that we don't even realize it. Compare your standard North American cow to the ones you see in India. They are very different. I don't see a problem with them finding the best cow they can find and cloning it. I'm not saying they should start splicing in pig/ostrich/whatever genes into the cows, because that's a little outside the abilities of selected breeding. However I have no problem with them using cloning to provide a good consistent product.

Re:As long as...

[Lemmy Caution]

I used to say almost exactly the things you are saying now. Then I actually learned what the extent of the genetic modification of foods really was: it includes things like introducing gene sequences from insects and animals into foods. It isn't just selective breeding 2.0.

My position on GMO has changed, very much, in the past 2 years. I suggest you get past the thought-experiment phase and look at the actual data.

Re:As long as...

[aXis100]

In my original comment, I purposely used the word "transgenic". This isnt just boosting selective breeding, but (if you pardon the pun) a whole other kettle of fish.

Re:As long as...

[CastrTroy]

Like I said, I don't mind if they clone things that are cows produced only by breeding cows. However I do start to have a problem once they start splicing in genes from other animals.

Meh.

[LordPhantom]

Seriously, what is the big deal? Admittedly, I don't know all of the potential concerns, but in terms of a nice juicy steak does it really matter if the cow is cloned? Having a cheaper way of creating new meat may offend the animal-lovers out there, but in terms of feeding the world, it seems like it's a rather incredible breakthrough.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly *why* will there be a price decrease?
Have you seen the price of milk go down after BGH -- the hormone that makes cows produce prodigious amounts of milk -- was allowed?

Have you ever heard of a 'beef' shortage what would necessitate increasing production?
Do you think the quality will be better, or are we simply going to double the changes of getting BSE?

Re:Meh.

[UbuntuDupe]

It may not matter at all in terms of health reasons. They may be scientifically able to rule out the possibility (to a high but imperfect level of confidence). But I still think that if people, for whatever reason, have some deep distrust of such products, they should still be given the OPTION to differentiate the products and not buy them. It's ridiculous to hide that information from them, even if their motives are ridiculous.

Re:Meh.

[the_wesman]

it's funny you should mention that bit about a 'breakthrough' in feeding the world - we don't need a breakthrough here - if all americans cut their meat intake by 10% it would free up enough grain to feed something like 60 million people! again, we don't need a breakthrough, we just need to use our heads - feeding the world is not difficult to do, we just need to try instead of just hoping that some new technology is going to come along and make everything better for us - it's like the fat people who believe in miracle diets and miracle surgery and miracle drugs and miracle exercise programs where you can get skinny and healthy without doing anything! ooh boy! the reason you're fat is because you eat crap and sit around on your ass all day (sorry for the tangent/rant)
-w

Re:Meh.

[tddoog]

A potential problem is biodiversity. Generally the only animal worth cloning (in economic terms) are stud animals which could lead to a dramatic decrease in animal diversity. The end result is a bovine population heavily populated with similar genetic weaknesses, but tasty meat (Actually the most prized genetic trait would be a high ratio turning grain into meat = more profit), which could lead to problems if some disease pops up in the future. It's a hypothetical but it is still a concern. The same can be said for the latest greatest GM crops.

Besides, would you really want to subject a bull to multiple lifetimes of daily hand jobs.

Re:Meh.

[smithmc]

  Seriously, what is the big deal? Admittedly, I don't know all of the potential concerns, but in terms of a nice juicy steak does it really matter if the cow is cloned?

That's right.

"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? (Takes a bite of steak) Ignorance is bliss."

Re:Meh.

[LordPhantom]

It does not go past me that you are named smithmc.
Agent Smith, I presume?

Re:Meh.

[smithmc]

  It does not go past me that you are named smithmc.
Agent Smith, I presume?

It gets better. A year ago, I bought a house from a guy named... Mr. Anderson.

Deceases?

[hexi]

Wouldn't a large amount of animals with exactly the same genes be very susceptible to deceases?

Re:Deceases?

[brunascle]

probably only if they let them breed. they could just continue producing clones, rather than letting them breed.

Re:Deceases?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hope so. Cloned immortal cows would probably suck, in the long run. But if they can figure out how to prevent "deceases" in humanity, I'm all over that.

Re:Deceases?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

only if they hate freedom and/or America will they be vulnerable to the traditional risks involved in monoculture.

Food

[PresidentEnder]

While organic food is nice and makes one feel warm and fuzzy inside, it is more expensive to produce: cows without growth hormone don't get as big, give as much milk, etc; plants without pesticides get eaten by these little things called "bugs." Now, organic foods are in some cases healthier (apple sans poison? Huzzah!), but unless something really strange happens, I don't see how a naturally born animal will have health benefits over and above a clone.

That said, since there will be those who don't want to eat cloned beef (which is fine by me), I'd like to see "This beef is NOT cloned!" in the supermarket. Nobody to stop the non-clone cow producers from advertising as such; if someone falsely advertises cloned beef as not being cloned, then we can all be angry at them together. I don't think government restrictions are necessary in this case.

Re:Food

[Cadallin]

"I don't see how a naturally born animal will have health benefits over and above a clone."

This is the statement I take issue with. I'm not exactly sure how far we've come since then but dolly died young of progressive lung disease, and the articles I can find suggest that other cloned animals since are not particularly healthy, and that the process is far, far less efficient than simply breeding animals. By which I mean it often takes dozens of attempts to produce a single viable embryo.

Given this information I'd guess that clones would not be a good way of producing animals identical to high quality stock at all.

Re:Food

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody to stop the non-clone cow producers from advertising as such

Yes there is: the government. The same government that prevents organic cattle ranchers from testing their cattle for BSE and advertising the beef as being BSE free. The FDA refuses to allow "BSE Free" labels on beef because of large cattle corporations; ie, it's cheaper for the corporations to bribe FDA officials to prevent others from labelling their beef as free of BSE than it is to test their own beef for BSE before slaughter.

(Posting anonymously because I've already moderated this thread)

Yea there out there.

[jellomizer]

There will always be a group (Bate for Fox news) giving enviromentalist a bad name. Unfortunatly there will always be groups claiming to be Enviromentalest groups complaining about anything new and potentionaly good, bringing up erational fears and missing the point. There is so much we can do to improve the environment using a lot of these "Envromental Enemies" technologies. Genetically Engineered Corn can be used to create a biodegradable plastic, but Some Crazy Enviromental Groups will not give a green thumb becuase genetically engineered crops are evil. eradatated meat which kills of a lot of the bacteria, Some enviromental groups are giving that the thumbs down because it uses radation and radation is evil too, Even though after the meat has ben radated the raditation drops to well below what would happen if you defrosted it in the microwave. Meat Cloning will only improve the quiality and helthynes of the food, as well proving a cheaper cost, unlike hormones, and additional chemicals cloning is just extending the same meat. If you want to debate meat cloning get off the Envrionmental band wagon and explain how the inital costs will only allow the richest farmers to use this process and creating a market which puts more farmers out of buisness and make it difficult for 3rd world countries to get into the process. But envriomental. Darn it most of them don't eat meat anyways so cloning shouldn't effect them.

Re:Yea there out there.

[dajozz]

The danger with genetically engineered crops is the drastic increase use of pesticides and other chemicals (which the GE crops are engineered to be immune to). That increase pollutes streams and increases the production of harmful chemicals, which causes undesirable diseases in humans.

Additionally, who said the the radiation level after using a microwave on your food is safe? Many people, I for one, refuse to eat anything that came out of a microwave. Not only because of the radiation but also because it modifies food on a molecular level, potentially stripping it of the nutrients humans need to be healthy.

How do we even know a clone is an exact clone? You mean to tell me scientists have figgured out EVERYTHING and they KNOW 100% it is an exact clone and it is safe? I prefer not to be part of a large cloning experiment. Nor do I want genetically engineered organisms in my body reeking havoc on a very fragile system designed by nature, not scientists. I wouldn't trust my Toyota to be serviced by a GM technician, why would I trust my body to be maintained by anything other than nature.

Environmentalist don't come up with these things for fun. They are mostly there to help people realize how much $$ influences everything, health is never a concern.

Re:Yea there out there.

[jellomizer]

There are other forms of genetically engineered crops that are designed so less pesticides are needed. (Except for say all is bad, incorage the good)

Microwaves have been cooking food for decades. Still not major evidence of harm from them, and the evidence that does exist comes from the fact that it cooks the meat to fast, the same things happends if you put it the oven at to high of a tempature, not from vibrating molcules (which is heat). As well any harm of lack of nuteriance is made up from the extra safety of sanitary food.

Meat is Meat is Meat. All recoded dangers in eating meat were from micro-organisms that havent been killed in the cooking process, Poisens the animal creates to defend itself, and heavy metals from the envrioment the animal injested. So if you eat mussle tissue you are Ok, That is why other cultures have been safely for thousands of years eating bugs, reptiles, enfibians, Fish, Mammels, Invertibrates, and even other people without health effects.

Re:Yea there out there.

[jellomizer]

forget about the meat is meat is meat part. I forgot about people with particular food alergies, espectally with some proteen strains

Re:Yea there out there.

[operagost]

Additionally, who said the the radiation level after using a microwave on your food is safe? Many people, I for one, refuse to eat anything that came out of a microwave. Not only because of the radiation but also because it modifies food on a molecular level, potentially stripping it of the nutrients humans need to be healthy.

I hate to tell you, but cooking ANYTHING removes some nutrients. Steaming is probably the least harmful, and microwave cooking comes closest to steaming your food since you are boiling the water from the inside. Unless you are eating all your food raw, you're "losing nutrients."

Re:Yea there out there.

[theBluesDog]

Microwave radiation is non-ionizing, meaning it does not "modify food on a molecular level". If you somehow manage to stick your head inside a microwave oven and close the door, it might be possible you could cook yourself. And i suppose that while so engaged, you could walk into traffic because you can't see with a microwave oven over your head. That could be dangerous too.

Re:Yea there out there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets get this straight. There is a HUGE difference between cloning and genetically engineering. Cloning, it taking something in nature and duplicating it many times. Genetic Engineering is adding, removing or modifying one thing until it is someting different from the original. In my opinion cloned beef seems ok to eat. From a business stand point, would you risk having a bunch of animals with the same DNA which a disease could wipe out the entire bunch? I seems way risky. On the other hand, you will be raising more "productive" animals, if healthy.

Re:Yea there out there.

[Anonymous Coward]

bringing up erational fears...

Yep. those are the fears of our times.

Re:Yea there out there.

[el_munkie]

Additionally, who said the the radiation level after using a microwave on your food is safe? Many people, I for one, refuse to eat anything that came out of a microwave. Not only because of the radiation but also because it modifies food on a molecular level, potentially stripping it of the nutrients humans need to be healthy.

Microwaves heat food by exciting the water molecules in it with non-ionizing radiation that is pretty close to the frequency of WiFi, cell phones, etc. There is no contamination of the food and it is not radioactive.

Re:Yea there out there.

[dajozz]

Do yourself a favor and complete this experiment.

-Gather some small pots with soil
-Place 1 seed of your favorite plant (daisy's will work just fine) in each pot
-Water half of the plants with boiled water (tap, bottled, whatever) that you let cool before watering plant
-Water the other half with water (same source as above) boiled in a glass in a microwave, again that you let cool before watering

Watch what happens over a 10 day period. You tell me if scientists fully understand what a microwave does to our food.

Re:Yea there out there.

[Jobe_br]

I hate to contradict you blatantly, but this is a myth.

http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave/plants.asp

Documented, scientifically disproven.

Re:Yea there out there.

[flabbergasted]

Do yourself a favor and complete this experiment.

• Gather some small pots with soil
• Place 1 seed of your favorite plant (daisy's will work just fine) in each pot
• Water half of the plants with boiled water (tap, bottled, whatever) that you let cool before watering plant
• Water the other half with water (same source as above) boiled in a glass in a microwave, again that you let cool before watering

Watch what happens over a 10 day period. You tell me if scientists fully understand what a microwave does to our food.

First, I'd like to know what you think will happen. I know what I think will happen. Given enough test plants to eliminate statistical variations, there will be no difference between the plants watered by microwaved water and those watered by unmicrowaved water.

Water is made up of an Oxygen atom bound to two Hydrogen atoms. A water molecule absorbs microwave radiation changing the quantum state of the rotational and vibrational levels of the molecule to a higher state. Through collisions with other water molecules, energy is transfered from the rovibrational states of the excited molecule to the translational states of both molecules. This raises the temperature of the water. It's called equipartition of energy. If there is more energy in the rovibrational states than in the translation states, then collisions are more likely to transfer energy downhill to the colder degrees of freedom. When you heat water on a stove by adding energy to the translational degrees of freedom, collisions tend to transfer energy into the rovibrational states. Equilibrium between the rotational, vibrational and translational degrees of freedom is reached in microseconds (in liquid water) regardless of how the energy is introduced. This is all very well understood.

Re:Yea there out there.

[dajozz]

I hate to have to educate you but not everything on the Internet is true.

Should i post the 50 the say its not a myth? What good does a URL from the Internet do? DO THE EXPERIMENT to find out that its not a myth.

Re:Yea there out there.

[Jobe_br]

From the original story post:

the products will likely not be branded as such and there is no way to know if we're currently consuming products from cloned animals

While this is unfortunately true, there are products branded in such a way that you know you are not consuming products from cloned animals. Whole Foods sells meats that will most certainly not be from cloned animals (FDA hasn't approved it yet, so the linked text doesn't refer to it). USDA Organic standards will also certainly be amended (or are currently written) to preclude any meat originating from cloned animals.

So, in short, if, as a consumer, you're interested or concerned about meat from cloned animals, or want to make a statement for ethical, moral, scientific, technical, or whatever concerns - you can write a letter AND speak with your wallet.

If meat or derivative products from cloned animals isn't a concern to you, its a free country!

Re:Yea there out there.

[Creepy Crawler]

Then explain to us why "microwaved water" kills the plants.

Is it converting to H2O2?, H3O+, OH-, or some other combination? Bromothymol blue and phenylethylamine detect acid and base reactions. You can also catalyse the decomp of H2O2 to H2O+H2 .

Tell us. What is it?

Re:Yea there out there.

[maxume]

Come on now, you enjoyed that, just admit it.

Re:Yea there out there.

[dajozz]

Unlike the opinion of modern science, and almost everyone on Slashdot, I do not know everything and admit when I do not know the answer. This is one of those situations. I do not know why.
All I know is that you should question EVERYTHING. Just because the FDA or the USDA or anyother goverment organization (read: only interested in $$ which is provided by the lobbyists of the new technology) approves a product, does not mean it is safe or that science has truly proven it operates within "safe" parameters.

Point to the parent of this, don't bash environmentalists because your training/education has led you to believe that is the correct thing to do. Be open minded and consider, just for a moment, science is not 100% accurate.

Re:Yea there out there.

[RobertLTux]

"Is it live or is it memorex?" is not a question i want to ask of the steak i am about to eat

Re:Yea there out there.

[Jobe_br]

Dude, chill.

I'm an environmentalist, too. I vote green, both politically and economically. But, I also know when folks are spreading myths. Did you actually READ the referenced article? Did you find any flaw in the actual scientific method applied to test the theory? The referenced article DID THE EXPERIMENT. And they proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the myth is wrong.

Go read it, c'mon - you owe yourself that. You're not the type of environmentalist that walks around with your hands covering your ears, right? I know bad science when I see it.

And let's not get into a who's more green/progressive/liberal pissing match. Trust me, let's not.

Re:Yea there out there.

[Creepy Crawler]

Too true...

Everything happens for a reason, because science dictates it. The only reason we may not know how something reacts is because we do not have the requisite intelligence and/or prior findings to show us the answers.

From what I gather from the water experiment, the "boogeyman" is microwave radiation. 3GHz to 300GHz is around the microwave spectrum. Microwaves, from scientific theory, cause massive vibrations in water molecules, raising heat. This radiation is not ionizing, as is UV and higher power radiation.

At most, certain molecules could decomp in cooking foods. Cooking with fire causes more decomp than microwave cooking.

Now, the water experiment only has about 3 elements we can break up and reconstitute. H, O, N. Good luck bring up the pressure of N2 to break that triple bond, so we have H and O. What compunds can you make with H and O? Water, H3O+, OH- and H2O2. So, we test for acid/base and decomp H2O2 with manganese to evolve H2.

I fail to see why this could kill anything, which the data supports.

Re:Yea there out there.

[dajozz]

Ok, no I'm not the type with my hands over my ears, and I'm not looking to get into a pissing match with anyone about being green. More power to you if you are, I hope many follow.

Lets think a little more about this experiment for a moment. Lets assume the experimenter used tap water. As we all know, tap water has more than just H2O in it. It is laced with chlorine, flouride, and any number of checmicals which can be found from your local annual water report that gets mailed to you if you pay the water bill.

Now, with those other ingredients included, would a chemist like to explain which other substances could be formed? I do not know the answer, I'm genuinely curious as to what else could be formed. Maybe different results with this experiment could be attributed to using tap water and the differing chemicals from water company to water company... Just a thought.

Re:Yea there out there.

[el_munkie]

Somehow I doubt that, but I don't feel like conducting the experiment myself. I'll just say that even if it does turn out like that, it still does not contradict my point that the water is not radioactive. If you were to put a radiation detector above the water, the reading would not differ from normal tap.

Consistency

[maxwell demon]

Farmers and companies [...] say cloning will bring consumers a level of consistency and quality impossible to attain with conventional breeding [...]

I guess it will also give pathogens a level of consistency and infectability impossible to attain with conventional monoculture.

Re:Consistency

[Intron]

My thoughts exactly. (heh)

Re:Consistency

[dasunt]

Commercially, the greater susceptability to disease doesn't seem to be a show stopper when it comes to horticulture. It has additional problems, but it also has some very good benefits.

For slashdotter's information, the different varieties of potatoes, bananas and grapes often are genetic clones.

As for infectability, if you want to point fingers, point one at modern factory farming. The conditions the animals are kept in encourage the transmission of disease.

Re:Consistency

[Steve525]

For slashdotter's information, the different varieties of potatoes, bananas and grapes often are genetic clones.

True, but the grape phylloxera reeked havoc on French wine grapes in mid-late 1800's. Currently there is some concern that a fungus is going to wipe out the Cavendish banana (the variety we all eat) in the near future. A lack of genetic diversity (and in the banana's case it's sterile) makes these problems much more likely and harder to deal with.

Re:Consistency

[MyNymWasTaken]

Steve525 already named off two monoculture disasters. To complete the set, remember the Blight - the 1840's Irish potato famine.

So from all your examples of cloned plants, we conclude that cloned animals are a good thing?

Re:Consistency

[An anonymous Frank]

Exactly, just as has heppened, and is now again occuring with bananas.

Re:Consistency

[Smurf]

Currently there is some concern that a fungus is going to wipe out the Cavendish banana (the variety we all eat) in the near future.

Huh? There are easily over a dozen varieties of edible bananas. I can recall out of the top of my head six different types, three of them real bananas (not plantains, i.e., "bananas" that must be cooked before eating - though it's more accurate to say that bananas are a class of plantains and not the other way around).

Of those three types of real ("dessert") bananas that I can recall, one is extremely different from the common one: it's much, much smaller (the size of a big and fat man's thumb), much sweeter and much better tasting. The other one is purple, but not as interesting.

The problem here is that people in the US are very monotonous when it comes to food: they are afraid to try things that haven't been here forever, and hence the "new" stuff doesn't get a market. Look at the types of fruit that are imported. When apples, grapes and pears are not in season here, we import apples, grapes and pears from Chile. Nothing against Chile but if we are going to import fruit, shouldn't we go for the many dozens of delicious fruits produced worldwide?

I can assure you that if Cavendish bananas were wiped off, there will be many varieties replacing it. As long as people buy them, that is.

Re:Consistency

[maarten_delft]

As for infectability, if you want to point fingers, point one at modern factory farming.

Agreed!

Mostly though, I don't like that we should be fucking our own food, we should respect what God / our planet provides us with and do the best with it. If in some season the apples are not perfectly round, so be it. If the cow from the hilly fields gives different meat from the cow that spends its lifetime indoors, so be it. Don't try to optimize or correct this with pesticides, hormones, practices that can be harmful in other ways.... and certainly don't try to do this behind our backs, trying to keep food processing a secret, or objecting to labelling (what is the difficulty of registering the beef and printing some small letters on the sticker? In the E.U. and I hope so in the USA, every piece of meat is already traceable to the farm, so it wouldn't be too hard.)

Furthermore, I believe that we should make a distinction between optimizing & fine tuning a physical, man-made system, and trying to change life itself, and the food that we grow. Living things are of a far higher complexity and far higher dynamics, we can't understand it. If we would just respect that, and learn how to best go about with this, without trying to change life itself, that would be a far wiser thing to do.

The cloning or genetically modifying an animal is a far riskier thing than cloning or GM-ing a plant. In both cases, we don't really know what we're doing, but in the animal case the dangers are closer to ourselves (as we ourselves are animals, look for example at the triggering of the Creutzfeld-Jacobs disease).

Re:Consistency

[thebaron2]

The pathogens that you need to worry about when you're talking beef and pork will be no more likely to occur no matter where the beef comes from.

The biggest chance that you have for contamination occuring takes place when raw product, already chopped/sliced/ground is delivered to manufacturing plants. From that point on, most meat is treated as though it were already contaminated. What I mean by that is that no matter how "safe" you "know" your raw material is, you must still meet certain USDA and FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service) "kill standards" when meat is processed.

Whether you're talking regular, home grown cattle or cloned cattle, all meat must be cooked to AT LEAST 160 degrees Fahrenheit internal temperature in order to kill any possible pathogens. In addition to that, most meat is treated with anti-microbial agents or even "zapped" with irradiation technologies to achieve at least a 6-8 Log reduction in pathogen counts at some point in the processing cycle, depending on which technology you use.

Furthermore, meat products are required by law to achieve a certain Water Activity level before they can be sold on the market. The Water Activity is a measure of the potential water energy available in a product that would sustain microbial growth after processing and packaging. Beef Jerky, for example, MUST attain a Water Activity level of .85 or below, with most Inspectors and regulatory agents demanding Water Activity of .80 or below. At these levels, it is impossible to meat pathogens to grow, and it doesn't matter if the meat is "au natural" or clones.

Safety is not an issue here - what surprises me the most is that there won't be package labeling requirements if you use cloned animals. Labeling requirements are so strict as it is, that I can't believe that new requirements won't pop up and get forced on the industry - which, IMO, would be a good thing.

Re:Consistency

[thebaron2]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but it's also worth mentioning that the above temperatures and vital statistics that meat manufacturers are required to attain are also CONSTANTLY monitored by the USDA and FSIS.

Before ANY processing can occur, the manufacturing process must be validated by the Quality Control department, and then that validation must be approved and the equipment/plant inspected by the USDA or FSIS officers. The validation processes are VERY scientific in nature and are often double and triple checked by outside firms before being published for approval.

Here's an example I quickly pulled from the internet. Although it isn't an actual validation paper - most of those are kept under strict confidence - it will give you an idea of what is required and the process of validation. Warning, it's a PDF!
http://www.meatscience.org/meetings/WSC/2005/Prese ntations/wsc_2005_006_0000_Buege.pdf

Any production process must be validated and it must be scientifically PROVEN that any pathogens present would not only be killed by the process, but that they're re-growth would be impossible.

Re:Consistency

[maxwell demon]

The pathogens that you need to worry about when you're talking beef and pork will be no more likely to occur no matter where the beef comes from.

The biggest chance that you have for contamination occuring takes place when raw product, already chopped/sliced/ground is delivered to manufacturing plants.

The pathogens I was speaking about won't harm me (at least not directly), because those animals affected by them will probably never make it into my food anyway. The pathogens I'm speaking about harm the animals (and in turn the animal farmers).

That is, I would have absolutely no worry to eat meat from cloned animals. However, if I were to make a living from raising cattle, I'd surely avoid them.

foo

[AWeishaupt]

Sounds like FUD to me.

Anywhere where any kind of technological innovation is applied to food, be it genetic engineering, irradiation, anything at all, there will be a dilettante backlash.

Re:Why does this remind me of

[LiquidCoooled]

yes, offtopic (and wrong)

misread title and went off on one.
ahhhh well.

Mmmm...

[stevobi]

This chicken tastes like Chicken.

Re:Mmmm...

[(Robo_Bro)]

From the article: "The data are very clear," said ViaGen President Mark Walton. "You really can't tell them apart." Out of context, one might say: "No $h1T, they're clones!", but he's referring to the difference between cloned meat and your individually bred, pampered, and free-ranged meat: THERE IS NONE.

Re:Mmmm...

[stevobi]

Whooooosh.

Coming on the heels of the closing of

[antifoidulus]

First Pet Savings and Clone, the company that made the first(and as far as I know) only commercially cloned cat for a private pet owner. However, what is interesting is that they could not even make the cloning process work economically at $32k a pop, so I wonder how cloned cows will be economically viable. I guess there is always that economy of scale issue.

Re:Coming on the heels of the closing of

[aXis100]

The big wins are in cloning prize bulls, or exceptional steers that were found after castration.

Cloning good milk producers would be a bit slow, but over time that would change. Remember that clones can have offspring (calves/sperm) too!

Against cloned foods, you say?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Where do you think seedless oranges come from?

Re:Against cloned foods, you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just seedless oranges, either. Most fruits come from cloned plants that have been selected for flavor. Cloning plants is just a lot easier than animals.

Re:Against cloned foods, you say?

[SydShamino]

Grafting isn't cloning.

Re:Against cloned foods, you say?

[chefmattrock]

Selective breeding isn't cloning either.

Re:Against cloned foods, you say?

[lisaparratt]

But taking cuttings is.

Re:Against cloned foods, you say?

[SydShamino]

No it isn't, not in the genetic sense being discussed in this article. Perhaps in a loose sense based on the original meaning of "clone", but this article is specifically discussing cloning being performed by surgical manipulation of the DNA in individual cells.

Trying to relate "taking a cutting and letting grow new roots" or "taking a cutting and sticking it on the roots of another plant" (a.k.a. grafting) to "taking a needle and sucking the DNA out of a nucleus, then inserting new DNA from other cell" is a very, very long stretch. I would see that as an attempt to confuse and cloud an issue, not offer open debate.

And no, I'm not claiming that surgically-cloned meat (for lack of a better specific term) is bad. It's probably better than genetically-altered meat, because in that case the meat has adjustments that nature has not had an opportunity to breed out. But claiming grafting or the like is the same as surgical cloning is like claiming genetic manipulation is like selective breeding - one case gives nature an opportunity to reject the manipulation by killing the result or making it sterile, while the other does not.

Re:Against cloned foods, you say?

[Maximum Prophet]

More accurate to say that taking a cutting is cloning and the surgical thing isn't. When you suck the DNA out of one cell and put in in an egg from a another animal, you aren't duplicating the mitochondral (sp?) DNA and the DNA from the cloned animal is old with shortened telomers. Unless you can reset the clock the new cloned animal won't live as long as a regular animal.

Plants made from cuttings typically live as long a plants grown from seeds, so they are the real clones, the Dolly types are the imposters.

Re:Against cloned foods, you say?

[SydShamino]

Perhaps, but words are defined by those who use them. If the wording "cloning" means surgical genetic manipulation by the scientists who speak it, and is understood as surgical genetic manipulation by 99% of the population that hears it in this context, then that's a valid definition of "cloning". Dictionaries that disagree are merely obsolete.

Re:Why does this remind me of

[aXis100]

Ahh, is this off topic or just uninformed? Please RTFA.

You are what you eat

[davidwr]

Cue Wierd Al's "I think I'm a clone now."

Re:Why does this remind me of

[trcooper]

I dunno, if they can take chicken genes and work some voodoo with a bison embryo and create real buffalo wings, I'm on board.

go organic

[amigabill]

The industry is pushing me more and more toward organic foods. It's more expensive, yes, but at least I know I'm not going to have a reaction to hormones and stuff that doesn't have to be in there. I don' think that cloned food is all that scary, as it's coming from DNA we'd have eaten before the cell samples were taken for the cloners. I am more concerned about genetic engineering than cloning, as with engineered DNA, we haven't been eating that for thousands of years and thus it has more potential for "side-effects" to happen than cloned stuff from a natural cow source.

If cloned and genetically engineered stuff is approved for public consumption, at least have the courtesy to require labelling so we can decide for ourselves. If the public is OK with such things, then they'll be successful in the market. If the public does not want such things, they should be allowed to choose, and that decision should not be hindered because they don't know what is or is not cloned or engineered or whatever. If the public doesn't want it, then the market for it should not florish due to devious obfuscation tactics, it should be the consumer's choice for a product to succeed, not the vendor's.

Re:go organic

[aXis100]

Im not convinced that "the public" can make an educated and informed decision. Ever watched an election?

One on one, and given the right information, most people can make an informed choice that blends the facts and their own moral compass. Unfortunately if you leave it up to "the public", a large number of people will be swayed by advertising (both true and false, both positive and negative).

Personally I'd rather leave this debate in a controlled forum rather than release it onto the supermarket floor. The number of poeple who will incorrectly associate clones with transgenic GM will be disasterous for any usefull progress.

Burn, baby, burn... that hamburger...

[__aaclcg7560]

Since we have to cook our meat all the way through to avoid being sick from growth hormones and antibiotics, do we have to burn the cloned meat crispy black to avoid being sick?

Re:Burn, baby, burn... that hamburger...

[Kohath]

You also have to do a little dance and say a prayer to Ralph Nader.

Re:Burn, baby, burn... that hamburger...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not to keep you safe from growth hormones, it's to keep the meat packer safe from lawyers. As we've heard on the news lately, food contaminated with e. coli is known to cause vomiting, diarrhea, and class-action lawsuits.

The most critical issue...

[RingDev]

is not health impact on humans consuming 'cloned' produce. Nor is it even genetically breading for improved feedstock.

The real danger here is a homogenized feed stock. If every cow in the world (or greater market region) is a clone of the same cow, they will all have the same strengths and weaknesses. A virus that may have previously only effected 5% of the feedstock population could suddenly effect 100% of the feedstock population.

I can see using cloning in two situations. 1) Immediate needs over ride the risk of losing the entire stock, and 2) as a small % of existing live breading facilities. As in a beef farmer may have a few hundred head of cattle, of those, 90% are 'normal' bread cows, the other 10% are clones. The clones would likely have a higher resale rate as you would be almost guaranteed the perfect cow. This way, even if something effects the clowned cow, you won't be out the entire food source, just a portion of "cash cow" income.

-Rick

Re:The most critical issue...

[ThomsonsPier]

live breading facilities.

That's just cruel. if you're going to batter them, at least kill them first.

Re:The most critical issue...

[Miraba]

live breading

I at least hope they're killed before they're fried.

Re:The most critical issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the mono-culture problem is a bit worse in the long term ... think of the virus as a predator, which is what it is. Now, we have a naturally evolving predator, but the prey is not allowed to naturally evolve or even be diverse against it. The only defense is an increased amount of antibody being consistently pumped into the clones, which is not a healthy alternative for the consumer. The drugs that are put into production cattle do not disappear when they are slaughtered, they go into you at the dinner table.

Long term, cloning means that we will be ingesting a lot more drugs that were never meant for human consumption. Organic looks better all the time.

Re:The most critical issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

This way, even if something effects the clowned cow

the clowned cow says: "mooohooohoooo"

yar, i'm dyslexic this morning

[Anonymous Coward]

FDA Set To Approve Products from Cloned Clowns

What a miraculous world we live in.

It's the monoculture, stupid

[brer_squid]

Cloned cattle are aproved by the FDA. Pretty soon the entire US dairy herd is genetically identical to highly optimized Holstein 1139-B. Then a minor mutation of a heretofore insignificant cattle disease causes it to turn deadly. And we end up paying the Amish $100 for a gallon of milk. Stock up on ice cream now.

Yoda Says...

[escapedlabmonkey]

Begun, the Clone Wars have.

Lean == Tasteless

[RogueWarrior65]

This lean meat crap makes me want to puke. For those of you who are old enough to remember, beef and pork used to have lots of fat which is what makes it taste good.

Everybody has health concerns

[TheRecklessWanderer]

All I hear today is, don't eat this, don't eat that, don't eat the other.

I recently found I have diabetes type 2. Thats the one where you have to watch your diet and take some metformin and other drugs (maybe), and exercise. (BLAH). Boo hoo for me, my Dad has it, my Grandfather on my mom's side, I'd be a little stupid if I wasn't expecting it. In any case, I went to these "Diabetes seminars" put on by the local hospital. There is a nurse, and she talks about how to take care of yourself. Lots of fliers, and basically, she says, don't eat this don't eat that, all the stuff I like. 3 days of seminars, and I have to go visit the nurse and do this and that and the other.

Eventually I figure out that this is just go generate easy money for the hospital. They are billing the province a huge amount for each seminar and visits, so I said screw it. Now I just do it myself and everything is fine.

Where am I going with this tho? Thanks for asking. Everybody is saying this is bad for you, that is bad for you. Oh, don't drink milk, it causes cancer. Don't eat peanut butter at school, people have allergy's. Freakin peanut butter, I grew up on that. Something is always bad for you. You have to eat something. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend my life eating rabbit food. Screw that.

So they are cloning my steaks now. Sometimes I find a really good tbone at the butcher, sometimes it's not so good. I would love to find one that I like, and clone that over and over again. Give me another a1j447L2K please. Perfect every time. Whew hew.

Let's not forget that every time somebody says something is bad for you, there is an agenda behind it. Pepsi says Coke is bad for you. Coke says Pepsi is bad for you. Milk marketers say juice is bad for you. The government wants you to know smoking is bad for you because it is a huge burdon on the health industry. (Well, it is bad for you, duh!).

It drives me crazy everybody telling me what to eat and what to drink. I'll do what I want.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your perception of healthcare orgs as producing easy "work" for themselves like this. I used to live in the UK. I ended up Type I (injecting) diabetic as a result of damage to my pancreas in an accident. For months afterwards, it was appointment, appointments, appointments. None of them were any use - "We've lost the case notes", "We've lost the test results", even "We've lost the doctor", but every time I had to take a day or half day off work and had been sent away, I saw the timewasters filling in their billing sheets with meticulous care before I left. They have every reason to waste the "patient's" time (at vast cost to said "patient"), no incentive at all to do their jobs. What if I developed complications because of the appalling service? Great! More "work"!

The sickest and most cynical thing about the whole business is the way small diabetic children are taught to inject in a way that is certain to be painful - and are then told that this pain is just a fact of life, in order in increase their misery and feelings of being sick and dependent. It's a complete lie. It's easy to learn to relax the subcutaneous muscles:

1) Always use a reasonably sharp needle - at least at first.
2) Stand up, put your weight on one leg, completely relax the other leg.
3) Make sure fingers are warm, "pinch an inch" at the 2:00 or 10:00 position (if the navel is noon), insert needle gently, and spin the needle on the way in.
4) STOP if there's any resistance or discomfort. If there has been discomfort, try again on the other side - the subcutaneous muscles on the first side will now be tense for a few minutes.

Voila! The needle will go in the necessary 1cm or so with no sensation whatsoever. Crying children are totally unnecessary.

It isn't even possible to obtain insulin in most European countries without doing a ridiculous paperwork dance that takes 3 days flexitime every month. It's much easier to obtain heroin. A noteable exception is Spain, where insulin can be bought over the counter as I understand it can in the USA. I've often asked why this "prescription" nonsense occurs in countries where it does, to be told that I would surely kill myself if issued with more than one month's supply at a time. If this is so, how come there are any living diabetics in Spain? Especially since it is nigh impossible to kill one's self with an insulin overdose, although permanent brain damage can be achieved with just a few days supply. (The lie about killing one's self with insulin leads to many failed insulin suicide attempts that require constant nursing to keep the brain damaged failed suicide existing in perpetuity - money, money, money.)

One of the problems is that no-one involved in the money-for-old-rope circus feels any need to update what they tell people. So you get some diabetic nurses telling you stuff from the days when it took a fortnight to get a result from a urine test and everyone had to eat cabbage, mixed in with more up to date stuff from others. You'll go mad trying to make sense of it because these people don't know what they are talking about, and it doesn't add up. You are much better off reading a good textbook and obeying simple, up to date rules that you sort out for yourself by behaving reasonably sensibly and testing regularly. If your sugar goes up, figure out what did it and don't do it again.

It's in your interest to watch your blood sugar, take care of any cuts or grazes immeadiately, see an optician and chiropodist at least once a year (opticians and chiropodists are responsible without the bullshit in my experience), and most importantly remember that you do need to take care, and you can take care in a sane way. Don't throw out the idea of caring for yourself just because cynical people have bullshitted you about it. That's like saying maths is bullshit because a moron with no understanding of the subject shouted at you in primary school!

As to TFA - yet again the issue is being missed. Dolly died young, with some nasty di

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[Vellmont]

Everybody is saying this is bad for you, that is bad for you. Oh, don't drink milk, it causes cancer. Don't eat peanut butter at school, people have allergy's. Freakin peanut butter, I grew up on that. Something is always bad for you. You have to eat something. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend my life eating rabbit food. Screw that.

Stop listening to just anyone and everybody, and start getting information from actual scientists and not dumb journalists out to sell eyeballs. Educate yourself about your disease and how foods affect your blood sugar. Don't just simply rely on someone to tell you what to eat, find out the reasons for it.

There seems to be a belief out there that all science is just whooey because it's all influenced by politics and self interest. That's largely not true. The self interest comes from the people reporting the science. Some of them are just reporters looking to sell eyeballs. Some are people with an agenda against meat, GM food, corporations, etc. These kind of people will ignore evidence, miss-report and miss-interpret evidence, listen to pseudo-scientists as if they were real scientists, etc.

If you want to eat candy bars all day and advance yourself to insulin dependent diabetes, go blind at 50, or worse, go right ahead. But don't bundle all claims about food together in one category as if they're all equally bad (or good for that matter).

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[crabpeople]

"So they are cloning my steaks now. Sometimes I find a really good tbone at the butcher, sometimes it's not so good. I would love to find one that I like, and clone that over and over again. Give me another a1j447L2K please. Perfect every time. Whew hew"

Perhaps it is the occasional bad steak that makes the good ones taste better. Eliminate the occasional, or even regular, bad steak and the good ones will normalize out so that they wont be "really good" anymore and will end up being normal.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[ArsonSmith]

Similar to saying poor or hungrey in America. We don't really have either, but because the norm in America has gotten to a point where most "actual poor" would feel like kings.

Sorry having to wear generic clothes instead of name brand, doesn't make you poor. Going without food for the 3rd day in a row in order to insure your child has a scrap of bread is poor. That doesn't happen in America unless it is by choice.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[955301]

Let's suppose One cow and bull become the choice of the entire industry - perfect meat, greating implant success ratios, etc.

Then a bug comes along that wasn't there before and is perfectly matched for that cow and spreads like the wind. There goes your entire industry because of the one problem - homogeniaty is not nature-resistant.

There's a big difference in your comparisons.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[bwalling]

Don't eat peanut butter at school, people have allergy's. Freakin peanut butter, I grew up on that.

As someone who's allergic to peanuts, I'm okay with you eating peanut butter, but don't plan on that being your meal for the class field trip, please! An apple, a bag of chips, Hi-C and a Little Debbie is not a filling meal, even for an eight year old!

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[kyjl]

[WilfordBrimley]
Did somebody say DIABEETUS?
[/WilfordBrimley]

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[MWoody]

I can't believe this shit got modded up. I'm sorry, Reckless, that you've got diabetes. But them's the breaks. And yeah, it DOES mean that you have to watch what you eat and drink. Or you die. Very simple. As you've said, given your relatives, it's in the blood; there is NO ONE to blame but yourself for not having recognized this fact and made the necessary changes to prevent this eventuality, or at least make its impact lessened.

Your little tantrum will take you right to the grave, and it might take a few of your extremities with it on the way. Maybe a little blindness thrown in. But no, you're sticking it to the man, being your own boss, living life on the edge.

Yes, of course the marketing divisions behind certain foods often skew or misreport findings to support their own products and damage others. But don't, in your attempt at rebellion, think for a second that it invalidates what you're told by a medical professional. Telling yourself the "diabetes seminars" are just there to make money for the hospital is ridiculous; what's next, you're going to not let them amputate your dead foot because they "just want the insurance money?"

Some might think I'm being a little harsh, but I'd wager that +5 post is getting thousands of views as I write these words. And a fair percentage of them are probably diabetics. And hell, some of them might decide to buy in to this self-delusion. In short: the post above is stupid and dangerous and could be hurting people. MOD IT DOWN.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[kchrist]

Sorry having to wear generic clothes instead of name brand, doesn't make you poor. Going without food for the 3rd day in a row in order to insure your child has a scrap of bread is poor. That doesn't happen in America unless it is by choice.

Let me guess, you live in the suburbs, right?

Come to San Francisco's Tenderloin district sometime and say that. Or downtown LA. Or pretty much any big city. Then tell me the people living on the streets are doing so "by choice".

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[TheRecklessWanderer]

OK so re-reading my article it does sound like I am ignoring what the nurses and the dieticians are saying, but that is not what I meant to say. What I was getting at was that everybody has a vested interest in keeping their jobs. For instance, the nurse says, "well you should come and see the nurse every week". What? Why? I test my blood sugar twice a day. I eat the right foods, I eat in moderation (regardless of my comments about steaks). I'm not looking for sympathy about anything wrong with me. I am dealing with it just fine thanks very much. Like I said, it's a family thing, and I knew it was coming. And as for the seminars, they were complete crap. I found out much more researching the web. Maybe other people find it useful, but for me it wasn't. Maybe I was to well prepared going into the seminar. Why are you saying I haven't recognized it. I quite plainly have, and I have made many changes to reflect the diabetes. Don't assume things I'm not saying. Finally, if you take medical advice from /. then you deserve what you get.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[ArsonSmith]

I happen to live in one of the US biggest 5 cities and yes there are two types of homeless people, those who are mentally incapable and those that just choose to be homeless. There is always people with signs and nasty clothes but a $600 bike.

A friend of mine ran a land scapeing business and tried to hire someone for $8hr and lunch and dinner to give him a hand for the day. The person said screw you I make $50 an hour standing on this corner.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[tehcyder]

The government wants you to know smoking is bad for you because it is a huge burdon on the health industry. (Well, it is bad for you, duh!).

Oh, well in the UK there is an argument that the government don't do enough to discourage smoking because they need the tax revenue. Now that *would* be a hidden agenda.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[kchrist]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[ArsonSmith]

If you'd like to find out more please have a look http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2 006-25,GGGL:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd =1&q=professional+panhandlers&spell=1

If you are not willing to do what it takes to get a job then you are homeless by choice. This can be as simple as just keeping enough discipline to show up dayly to sucking it up and working for someone. To actually moving to another location where you may be able to afford to live.

If you are unable to do anything then there are plenty of programs to make sure you have food and a roof. Unfortunately the two above get mixed together and the people who actually need help miss out because of the masses that just want a free ride.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

You really have lived the sheltered cocooned American life haven't you? You really should step away from your middle class keyboard and get out more.

Re:Everybody has health concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

America is more 3rd world than you might think. Step away from your middle class television, and get out and see what's really going on in your country.

Another joke

[Rayonic]

Coming soon... REALLY homogenized milk!

Yummy.

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they can clone the soul as well I'm perfectly fine with it. Everyone knows it's the soul of the animal that makes the meat so tasty.

-evilghost

Big deal?

[a_nonamiss]

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. Cloning is exactly like forcing twins. Are cows that are born as twins any less healthy than non-twin cows? All you are doing is creating a genetic copy, something which happens all the time in nature. I think people scared of cloning have watched too many Star Wars prequels. Sure, there is an evil use for cloning, but there is an evil use for almost everything.

Re:Big deal?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

The flip side to this is that we have been eating cloned fruits and vegetables for thousands of years (cuttings, grafting etc.). How do you think we have seedless grapes/oranges?

Re:Big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there is always an evil twin. Thus without proper labelling, you would have a 50% chance of eating an evil hamburger.

Re:Big deal?

[crosstalk]

I know this is not the total point of your comment, but usually the mother and the twins suffer. Most times the mothers goes into keotosis, and then suffers a distended abomasum(then requiring surgery to fix) many times the twins are underweight are have to be pulled(there was significant talk in the Vet community about aborting twins if found as soon as possible(like during the pregnancy checking time frame) The way this is done at 30 days is you sometimes can feel if there are twins because the econmic repercusions were worse than having to abort and recycle the cow(and recycle I mean giving shots of uterine/ovarian hormones to cause them to come back into estrous.

Now in relation to your question on what the big deal is, Not to me, clone it, whatever, I personally wait for the days of the food replicator. Now I think as someone else pointed out we need a stock that keeps breading regulalry to keep problems from cropping up from only having one genetic line available.

Re:Big deal?

[mcmonkey]

And there is always an evil twin. Thus without proper labelling, you would have a 50% chance of eating an evil hamburger.

The left, or sinister, cow is always the evil one.

Re:Big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, cows born as twins are often less healthy. I grew up on a cattle farm and had to help with the cattle and calves. Not always but many times there would be problems with one of the twins. Sometimes the mother would just not want to take care of the one, sometimes she wouldn't be able to produce enough milk to support two growing calves. When there are problems like this you can try to pawn one off to another cow that has lost is calf but it can be tricky getting her to accept the new calf. It usually involves some messy work with afterbirth, if you happen to be able to do that, or you can try some salt. I seem to have gotten off topic but the point remains, in regards to twins there is usually one that is not as healthy.

If you really feel up to it you can bottle raise one. My sister got very attached to a calf we raised this way, named her Baby. One day Baby was gone and my sister, being rather young at the time, was very sad and confused as to where Baby went. Baby tasted good.

Certified Clone-Free

[sottitron]

Anyone want to guess when Clone-Free products will turn up on the shelves for 4 times the price??

So they were mislabeling milk?

[RZ-1]

Now we can really have true homogenized milk.

Putting the Frankenstein in Frankenfurter

[Ranger]

Soon we'll all be eating cloned beef from cattle raised in high density feedlots who stand around in their own feces and urine pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics. Then the meat will have to be irradiated to kill the resistant strains of E. coli created in the cattle's stomachs because were forced to eat corn that they didn't evolve to eat.

Since consumers will expect their irradatiated meat to glow in the dark, they'll create glowing cattle just like the glowing pigs.

Read Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma if you want to or watch Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms talk about the real future of raising meat (long) and how to turn vegetarians back into meat eaters and why it's important to have promiscuous healthy earthworms.

Re:Putting the Frankenstein in Frankenfurter

[Oligonicella]

Just so you know, city boy, cattle stand in their feces and piss in their drinking pond on the ranch too. Growth hormones and antibiotics are not unknown to ranchers either. Corn is cereal, cattle eat cereal. Note to city boys, grass is cereal, corn is grass. Look it up. Vegetarians can turn back into meat eaters by picking up a burger. It's no chore. You sound programmed by the evil vegan underground.

Re:Putting the Frankenstein in Frankenfurter

[Ranger]

Just so you know, city boy, cattle stand in their feces and piss in their drinking pond on the ranch too.

Dude, I am not a vegan/vegetarian/lacto-ovo-vegetarian and never will be. I do eat meat, but I want to know where my meat comes from. A ranch is a much different operation than a CAFO. Dude, my grandfather raised cattle and I did spend a little time around them. He used to give them antibiotics. Dude, he used to raise a steer for us every year and we'd take it a local slaughterhouse and then we'd eat beef for a year.

Not all grasses are cereal crops. By your logic we could eat grass and bamboo and get as much nutrition from them. If the cattle just ate the stalks and leaves and not the grain that'd be OK. Cows did not evolve to eat modern maize kernels. It has way too much starch. It's the cellulose their stomachs break down. Most of the problems associated with CAFO's would be alleviated by allowing the steers to be fed grass for the last two weeks.

Dude, quit makin' assumptions about people you don't know. Go back and stump breakin your cows.

Deja-moo

[Rhys]

The feeling that you've eaten this beef before.

What about cloning the organs?

[ShyGuy91284]

If they are going through this much trouble, couldn't they eventually be able to "grow beef" in a lab? Who needs the whole cow. My meat doesn't need a soul. Would get my vegetarian g/f off my back about eating "cute animals".....

Re:What about cloning the organs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cows don't have souls. That's the whole "man was made in God's image" thing.

Re:What about cloning the organs?

[msaavedra]

People are working on this. See this article in Discover magazine.

I'm Not.

[ackthpt]

More producing products (cows, in this case) mean more supply of the products I use (cream, cheese and other high fat-low carb dairy products). More supply means lower prices. Lower prices means more business opportunities, which means a stronger economic outlook for those who can't afford the high barrier to entry created by the high cost to breed cattle.

THe problem with all this is like we were discussing a while back about organic tomatoes and such. Engineered stuff usually is for quantity and eye appeal over what originally drew us to products, like flavour. You may get more milk, but if it tastes like white-wash is that supposed to be a good thing?

I'm a huge fan of pistachio nuts, but about all you can get in the markets these days are these horrible jobs grown in California. Big, green and utterly lacking in flavour, or more often tasting like mud. I found Zenobia, a company I bought nuts from ages ago when the local market sold them. Grown in Turkey or other countries in the middle east. Small, but rich in flavour. Today's kids won't even know what a good pistachio tastes like or why people actually eat those bland things unless someone gives them a handfull of Turkish Antep nuts. When I travel outside the US I can still get the real deal from Iran, Lebanon, etc. So you see, bigger isn't necessarily better. I try to stick with what originally worked fine for me. Now I'll even pay a premium to keep the good stuff alive.

I absolutely, positively do NOT want government requirements for labeling. If I am concerned with labeling, I will call the manufacturer of the product and ASK.

Pass on a big 'Hi!' to your two-headed kids for me.

Stamped cows.

[dilvish_the_damned]

...level of consistency and quality impossible to attain with conventional breeding,

Mc D's hamburgers have a level of consistency and quality impossible to attain with conventional cooking. Every damned one of them the same. They have people specializing in making sure they are of the highest quality that can be attained *reliably*, which means they kind of tast a little like dog shit and pickles (or what I suppose pickles and dog shit might tast like).
They have a certain quality, and its always consistent. I guess we like it that way. Every fucking steak the same. Sign me up for a lifetime of this. It will be just like being married and faithfull, only with porterhouse. Every one of them the sa....

Hey, if you don't label them, how will I know when I am cheating? And when will MC D's get their brand of cow?

Look guys, I am not against geneticly engineering things, I am against people taking the discovery and basic fun out of life. I really want every steak to be different.

Re:Stamped cows.

[Atheose]

Even if it's almost the same cut of beef, the way you marinate and cook it can be different. Use your imagination!

Re:Stamped cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

which means they kind of tast a little like dog shit and pickles (or what I suppose pickles and dog shit might tast like).

Awfully quick with that qualifier. I'm thinking somebody lost a bet in college.

Cloning

[Anon-Admin]

From my experience, cloning gives a better and more uniform product. I have cloned 1000's of plants and everyone of them is the same.

Next time you see some one protesting cloning, ask if they would like a good joint of Dro to puff on. Good Hydro weed is all clone. This gives a uniform response and eliminates the need to locate the males. Cloning beef is bad! Cloning Weed it good? hmmm.

Re:Cloning

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the pot discussion is slightly off topic. But I can't resist....I know I'm goint to sound like an old fart on this one, so I'll start by saying I'm 31. I've been smoking pot for 16 years, and I've watched the hydro revolution for a long time. Once in a while, for fun and variety, I get a bag of hydro and smoke and/or vaporize it. Then I go back to the good stuff, and by that I mean natural weed grown in the sun using soil. Why? It burns better. It burns slower and more efficiently, making the smoking experience longer and more enjoyable. It doesn't dry as quickly. I can leave it on the tray for an hour, go back to smoking it, and it doesn't crumble to dust in my hands. I can pack a bowl, and it goes around the circle a few times, and everybody gets a good hit. Most important: You build up less tolerance to the natural stuff, and the tolerance builds slower. I can smoke in the morning, and every couple hours all day, and get high each time. Notice that with dank bud, you smoke in the morning, get high, and every time you smoke for the rest of the day you barely feel any higher. And you're wasting huge amounts of money because it cost so much more! Now, I will admit that awesome dank bud has a taste that is unique and delicious, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying it's like a cake. All day every day I eat food, and once in a while I eat cake. To all the new stoners in the world: don't discount the natural stuff because you think it tastes bad compared to the kryptonite. Smoke with mindfulness, that means pay attention. You'll see what I'm saying is true.

Re:Cloning

[Anonymous Coward]

At age 61, I AM an old fart and I've been smoking pot on and off for 38 years (ever since college). Over half of the prison population consist of people like me (I've never been arrested thank goodness) or those who supply people like myself. I can't believe future generations will never experience the pleasures of pot, as it would appear if things keep going the way they are.

Re:Cloning

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's all genetics and nurture has nothing to do with it? You can affect the quality of meat on a cow much more by what you feed it and how you treat it than by what its breeding stock is. Even genetically identical plants will display variety if you give some more fertilizer and others no water. The problem as I understand it is that the beef industry uses way too many antibiotics and bags of corn, and not enough grass feed. This will not change even if all the cows are cloned.

Re:Cloning

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurry up hon you are late for church.

Re:Cloning

[zobier]

I find outdoor grow superior to the alternative, however it's almost impossible to find in Sydney unless you grow your own -- and that's not a viable option for some. I find the current state of affairs sad.

Re:Cloning

[shplorb]

An interesting point! Many plants have been "cloned" via non-seed propogation such as grafting, cuttings and tissue culture for thousands of years. (Well, not thousands in the case of tissue culture!)

None of these plant species have suffered from any catasrophic diseases. Of course, there are diseases and pests that affect plants, but they haven't wiped out everything.

I should know, my family has run a production nursery for decades and at any one time has thousands of citrus trees "cloned" by grafting sitting around. Take a short drive over the hill and there's thousands of hectares of grapevines, all "cloned" by cuttings.

It is a good point... we've done well with cloned plants, so what makes cloned animals any different? It can't be that there'll be a monoculture, because there will most probably be many different varieties of animals (just as there currently are) like there are with oranges - different regions will prefer different types. Steak with strong marbling is what people in the USA want, whereas in Australia we prefer ours lean.

Re:Cloning

[Anonymous Coward]

More uniform, yes. Better, not necessarily. A cloned animal cannot improve on the previous generation.
Beef farmers should be concentrating on improving their herds via performance metrics. My family runs a sheep farm in this way. In the last ten years, they've seen gains in average body weight (55kg, now almost 65kg), average fleece weight (5.8kg, now 6.5kg), while reducing average fibre diameter by over 1 micron (>21.5um, now about 20.5um). If we selected the top 10 sheep and cloned them, we would see no future gains. Why can't beef farmers do improve their herds in the same fashion? i.e by knowing its full family tree, whether it was born a single or as a twin (with sheep, twins have a harder start to life, but are more likely to throw twins), measuring growth rates, fat scores etc...?

I'm not against cloning in principle, but this doesn't seem like the right application for it.

And why do most people prefer marbled beef, the byproduct of grain feedlotting? Give me a good lean steak any day (I prefer the fat on the edge, that way you can eat it if you feel like it)

Re:Really REALLY excited.

[mpapet]

More supply means lower prices. Lower prices means more business opportunities.

You mistakenly believe that the market for cattle operates efficiently. There is no reason to believe that the market for cattle would operate any differently than, say the market for desktop computer operating systems. It's exposed to the same amount of legislative influence, graft and corruption required to remain in a market that any other market for goods or services. Another example was the de-regulated power industry that California used for a while. Where was the greater supply of energy at lower prices promised? ...which means a stronger economic outlook for those who can't afford the high barrier to entry created by the high cost to breed cattle.

Like most barriers to entry, they are legislated to address two needs:
1. Public perception that "something must be done!"
This is why your food supply is one of the safest in the world. Do you want more e-coli in your food supply or less?
2. Protection from competition.
This is why quickie-mart capitalism exists. It fulfills the rhetorical need to justify absurd policies.

I doubt there is any opportunity to look at the issue objectively because like most quickie-mart economic believers, it's a belief that has it's own self-satisfying logic to it. No amount of objective analysis of how a market actually works versus your imagined and largely academic concept of how it -should- work will change your postion.

Can't "vote with your dollars," then, can you?

[dpbsmith]

"the products will likely not be branded as such and there is no way to know if we're currently consuming products from cloned animals."

Right. The "it's a free-market, vote-with-your-dollars" folks never explain how you can vote with your dollars if you can't tell what you're buying.

The current administration talks a good line about a "free market," but their application of the principle is very selective.

Re:Can't "vote with your dollars," then, can you?

[RexRhino]

I have absolutly no trouble finding non-GMO food, despite there being no laws requiring GMO food to be labeled. See, it is funny, the people who sell non-GMO food realize there is a market for it, and so they explicitly label their food as such.

Re:Can't "vote with your dollars," then, can you?

[maxume]

Well, you could talk to your butcher and explain to him that you would like to know where your beef is coming from, and that you won't be buying any without his assurances that it is not from cloned stock. If his assurances aren't enough, stop buying beef from him until they are or seek an alternate source.

Plenty of people buy their beef 'on the cow' and have it butchered/butcher it themselves, so while it may be inconvenient to seek other sources, they are out there.

See the part that makes it a free market is that the butcher is free to ignore you if he doesn't care about the loss of your business. Sure, sucks for the paranoiac with the intense fear of cloned meat, but there ya go.

Re:Can't "vote with your dollars," then, can you?

[n6kuy]

Why wouldn't you be able to tell what you're buying?

If there is money to be made from selling gauaranteed non-cloned beef, then you can be assured that someone will market it, and label it as such. Witness the use of the "organic" buzzword.

If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[Vellmont]

Never eat another apple. Yes, every single apple is a clone of the first tree of that type of apple. Apple trees in agriculture are propogated by cuttings. The seeds inside will likely produce a tree with apples that tastes nothing like its parent.

Re:If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[Dr. Jest]

For an even more obvious example, check out most commercially available bananas. They do not have seeds, so the only way for them to get a new plant is from a cutting. Still, we're comparing apples and beefcakes here. I don't really have any problem with cloned meats but I can understand why others will have a gut reaction against it.

Re:If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[dodongo]

You also can't graft a cow into soil and make it grow. There's a difference between selective breeding and cellular-level manipulation of organisms.

Re:If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[Gadgetfreak]

Many fruits are clones. I won't say "most" because I don't know as a fact, but a lot of the typical consumer fruits are. Wine grapes are cloned. In fact, they're all hybrid root systems... roots from one type spliced to the vines of another type. That way they can change grape styles without growing new plants.
Citrus is also spliced for reproduction in farms. For consistency and seedlessness, but also for prized varietals.

But unlike mammals, fruit undergoes mutations in its own growth, not just when it reproduces sexually. Some new-growth branches of an apple or citrus tree will produce genetically different stuff, even though it started from the same cutting.

That, and fruits are much simpler and much better understood than mammals. Whether or not it's rational, people have a fear of the unknowns with mammal-attacking viruses and prion diseases like mad cow. Does a cloned animal increase the risk of spreading these diseases? I don't know, but it's something I think the public needs to be assured of.

There are always some people with any given opinion, but most of the people I know couldn't care less if the beef they're eating was bred or cloned, from a moral standpoint. It's not like current breeding is "natural" anyways. It's a science in itself.

Re:If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[elend]

I hope all your cloned Food does not have BSE. No Beef for this Boy for 20 Years,don't miss eating Animal Cadavers.

Re:If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[radtea]

For an even more obvious example, check out most commercially available bananas

Yes, by all means do: "The common banana found at breakfast tables all over the developed world is in peril. Both pests and disease are threatening to make it extinct. The banana most familiar to us, and most in danger, is the Nanica variety of the Cavendish cultivar group. All Nanica banana plants are more or less genetically identical. Since the cultivar is sterile and seedless, it is spread by clippings, creating clones instead of offspring. It was adopted more than 50 years ago when the previous Gros Michel variety was killed off by a blight. The chief hazards to today's banana are pests, Black (and Yellow) Sigatoka fungi, and Panama disease." (emphasis added.)

Monocultures are susceptible to disease, and the case of bananas is empirical proof that monocultures do die off from disease. Widespread use of artificial insemination in cattle production already means that most beeves in North America are the offspring of a relatively small number of bulls. There is already a concern within the veterinary community regarding inbreeding and genetic homogeneity. Cloning has the potential to make this problem worse.

Re:If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[Idarubicin]

There's a difference between selective breeding and cellular-level manipulation of organisms.

True. The key point is, we're talking about the former and not the latter; both the cows and the apples are clones, and both are products of selective breeding. Why am I allowed to do all kinds of 'unnatural' things to a cutting from an apple tree, but I'm not allowed to do 'unnatural' things to a dollop of cow cells? I can graft a bit of apple tree onto another apple tree, but I can't graft a bit of cow onto another cow? Bah.

Re:If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[dodongo]

Your implicit suggestion that I misrepresented the article is right-on. Mea culpa.

I don't know why, but I do actually have a strong psychological distinction between grafting in flora and cloning in fauna. Maybe it's the hundreds of years of history the former technique has behind it. So you may scoff at my distinction, and well, that's fine. :)

Re:If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[ad0gg]

I hope all your cloned Food does not have BSE. No Beef for this Boy for 20 Years,don't miss eating Animal Cadavers.

Don't worry i'm making up for your lost share. MMMM steaks.

Re:If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you can, but it won't grow into a cow :)

Re:If you don't want to eat cloned food...

[Anonymous Coward]

Horticultural cloning is completely different from current animal cloning techniques.

Yes, all apples of the same variety are genitically identical, but they are created by grafting a cutting from a 'donor' plant onto root stock from another. There is no 'messing' with the cells whatsoever.

Animal cloning however uses Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear _transfer). This involves taking a cell from the animal to be cloned, extracting its nucleus and inserting it into a donor egg which has had its nucleus removed. There are great stresses placed on the cells and the biochemistry involved is not yet fully understood. The resulting clone is not an exact copy since it retains the donor's mitocondrial DNA and the cloned animal's nuclear DNA.

The long-term implications of this type of cloning is just not yet fully understood.

More food??

[Atheose]

Heaven forbid the technology that may one day eliminate global starvation is immoral to a few people!

Re:More food??

[Anonymous Coward]

Heaven forbid the technology that may one day eliminate global starvation is immoral to a few people!

You are confused. The technology to eliminater global starvation is decades old. Distribution and politics are all that have prevented it being applied. Cloning has nothing to do with it; in fact cloning will be used to spread it by locking farmers into sterile livestock which they have to replace from the "manufacturer". This lockin will ensure big profits and keep the market safe for the cloners. In the long run, this will mean more starvation as poorer farmers go to the wall in difficult times. That is immoral and it is the intended application of this technology which has, in fact, no other application or demand.

Re:More food??

[Oligonicella]

Horse friggin' shit. Farmers can always breed their own damn cattle. No wonder you posted AC.

Re:More food??

[An Onerous Coward]

Global starvation isn't a result of our growing our cows inefficiently. It's a result of growing our cows at all. It takes 5-10 calories of grain to produce one calorie of meat. If you care about starving people, rather than about scoring points against environmentalists, then you shouldn't eat meat and you shouldn't go back for seconds. But I don't get the feeling that you care much for the whole "live simply so that others may simply live" lifestyle. You strike me as more of an SUV kind of guy.

The old-fashioned way cheaper?

[degajzenashol]

Isn't the old-fashioned way of producing new offspring cheaper? Cloning is overrated.

Re:The old-fashioned way cheaper?

[ocelotbob]

While cloning is more expensive than the good ol' in out, in out, it's cheaper than waiting for another one in a million cow to come along that you raise to rent out for stud services. By cloning prized bulls and cows, you can better ensure that your farm has a better chance to raise another generation of high quality cattle.

Re:The old-fashioned way cheaper?

[degajzenashol]

True. Still it is just a method of making good semen more available/cheaper. The steak itself is not a clone. All in all more viariety=better IMHO.

Just a thought

[justinbach]

I know that a fair amount of progress is being made in growing organs and other parts of the body in a completely separate environment from, in current usage, the transplant destination. Do you think that eventually we'll to the point where we can just grow, say, a cut of filet, or maybe a whole roast?

At such a level, vegetarians (at least those coming from an ideological as opposed to a health-oriented perspective) might be in a bit of a bind in answering questions about the ethics of eating meat. Surely, an organism without a brain (i.e. a genetically developed flank steak) can't be construed as any more conscious or "feeling" than an ear of corn or a head of broccoli, right?

Monopoly On Beef Production

[mpapet]

Cloning is the fastest path to a monopoly on beef production. Put aside "frankencow" or other fear-based rhetoric for a moment.

Like ADM and Cargill in the corn production world, it's only a matter of time before whoever runs the largest beef production factory abuses what's left of smaller production factories.

What happens to the gene pool of cows once cloning starts? I predict you'll narrow it a great deal thereby creating another monoculture. It's easy to argue why monocultures are bad.

In the current political climate in the U.S., this will be welcomed.

One cow to rule them all....

Re:Monopoly On Beef Production

[sherriw]

This is already happening. If you think there is fair competition in the beef industry, think again. Read the book: Fast Food Nation.

Clone some ethics while we're at it.

[chefmattrock]

This greatly disturbs me. I don't believe we should halt all progress in these fields, they will clearly have a lot to offer us in the future. However, I strongly believe that these fields are being directed by people with out best interests at heart. We have no idea the long term effects of cloning, or consuming foods from cloned animals. Similarity breeds weakness. If all the cows on a farm are clones, they are all susceptible to the same diseases. Nature tends towards diversity for reasons of strength and survivability. I took a biotech class at college. We focused on genetically modified foods. One of the best discussions we had was on tomatoes. Companies are breeding tomatoes to have a longer shelf life, smooth round shape, and a tough bright red skin. I asked if taste ever came into their decision process. Nope. It doesn't' directly translate to a savings or increased profits, so it's not a consideration. Longer shelf life, and more marketable appearance were the things they were looking for. That's why we have tomato's that taste like cardboard. We're just crossing into a dangerous time where we think we can outsmart nature. But we know just enough to be dangerous. People are afraid (and rightly so) about mad cow disease because cattle farmers found they can save money by feeding brains of other animals to their cattle. The leaders of these companies look as far as the next fiscal quarter's profits. Not the health effects of their products 5, 10, 20 years down the line. Their legal departments are writing the legislation that is supposed to be regulating the industry. We need real government regulation, and labels are the most basic of first steps. It's hard to slap someone on the wrist when you hand is in their back pocket. -- Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry. Winston Churchill

Why labelling is better than hiding

[Wills]

The reason why government should be insisting manufacturers label their products as others have urged is because food manufacturers refuse to answer consumers' questions about what is in their products, especially where cloning technology is involved. Suppressing information about cloning technology in products denies consumers their natural right to choose different products and gives the wrong impression that there is something bad which must be hidden from consumers. It opens a door to the Luddites shouting "cloneburgers". The answer is that the manufacturers should be proudly labelling their products which use cloning technology. The products already have labels with brand and nutrition information, etc. Adding a little extra bit of information to a label costs the manufacturer essentially nothing, and lets the consumer decide whether to buy different products.

Re:Why labelling is better than hiding

[Anonymous Coward]

It does cost more than the ink on the label, because if the label is to be truthful then the product must be tracked through the processing facilities -- dairy barn to cheese maker or slaughterhouse as the case may be -- and the cloned milk can't be mingled with the uncloned milk, etc.

I object to the labeling for the same reason why I wouldn't want my tax money being spent to certify kosher food or bottled holy water. There is no SCIENTIFIC way, with a mass spectromer or any other means, to tell the difference between the products. I think the FDA should stick to scientific and proven differences, not indulge the mass delusions, as long as they are spending our tax money. The kosher labeling system works just fine without government intervention, and if the anti-clonists want to, they can set up a similar system.

I participate in non-governmental labeling systems which I pick out plywood that is grown in sustainable manner, but I don't want my tax money spent to administer such a labeling system -- in fact, given the political power of big timber firms, I would not trust a government administered labeling system.

The fact of the matter is, if you buy three gallons of milk, one labeled as "organic", one with no label, and one labeled as "non-cloned", and take it to the lab, YOU CAN'T TELL IF THEY ARE LYING. That also means that one type of milk will never make a difference to your health. If they do allow a cloned/non-clones labeling system, it should carry a cigarrette style box of text: "WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that reading the labeling on this product can lead to superstition and mass delusion."

Re:Why labelling is better than hiding

[Wills]

Tracking products from farm through the processing chain to the retailer is already done in some places such as the EU. The cost of that tracking is relatively very small compared to the costs of all the other components of food bureaucracy and compared with the large hidden costs of farming subsidies which exist in both the US and the EU and which continue to distort and harm the free market. Even for organic food which has the most stringent and thus the most expensive of tracking requirements, the tracking cost is actually a very small part of the overall additional cost of that sort of food.

"I object to the labeling for the same reason why I wouldn't want my tax money being spent to certify kosher food or bottled holy water. There is no SCIENTIFIC way, with a mass spectromer or any other means, to tell the difference between the products."

That's incorrect. There certainly are scientific ways of detecting GMO food products, and some of these methods are commercially available today. For example, Invitrogen has a GMO testing service:

"Our GMO test procedures are capable of detecting as little as 10-100 copies of GM DNA which is typically well below 0.001%. Test sensitivity does diminish depending on the degree of processing the sample has undergone, certain processing practices are more destructive than others. Typically our tests are capable of detecting GM-DNA if present at or above 0.1%."

Pissed his pants from excitement, eh?

[Ranger]

God, I hope this was some kind of long sarcastic ironic rant. Because you could interpret everything in it as it's exact opposite and it would make sense.

And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

And in other news...they don't label milk and meat that comes from identical twin cows either.

Cloning an animal rights violation

[Eravnrekaree]

I think cloning of animals is a bad idea, for the animal and also the people who will eat it. What kind of side effects of the animal will there be as a result of this? The Dolly the Sheep had a shortened lifespan. Will a number of cows be cloned which will have terrible defects and health issues?

Also the genetic code of animal may not be at all random whatsoever. For all we know, there may be a specific reason why certian genetic code is used for a certian animal, perhaps even influenced by the animals own consciousness before it enters this body. Could it be that conscious beings exist beyond the body? Could there be something called reincarnation? This idea has been a part of many eastern metahphysical concepts for thousands of years, perhaps they are right. I think it is quite possible, and that their bodies are specifically programmed, perhaps to match and for compatability with the consciousness of the being that will inhabit it. Perhaps this is a free will issue, the right of the conscious being to decide and determine the genetic code that it will live in, which would be one of the most sacred rights of any being, to choose its own body it will live its life in. Cloning deprives the being of the right to make that choice for themselves regarding the body they will live in by imposing the body that was meant for another conscious being upon them.

You may call this speculation, but it could very well be true. There is so much we dont know, and we are ignorant about who we are and where we really come from. I believe it is best to leave the genetic composition of the body of conscious beings to nature, god or the control of the conscious being that will inhabit it. Even if you only accept that nature influences the programming of an animals DNA, the selection of a cloned genetics selected by scientists allows specific bodies to be forced upon these beings, by scientists who have an agenda which may not at all be in the best interest of either the animals or even those who will eat it. It is better to leave it to chance as with nature, who has no agenda, or to the animals own choice, which they make before they enter the body that will be theirs and chosen by them.

Re:Cloning an animal rights violation

[Eravnrekaree]

Oh, I also forgot to mention all of the possible monoculture issues regarding this practice. Each animal should have a different genetic code. We know that the sexual reproductive system is essential in producing diversity, and the diversity of parent genetic code is really quite essential to the health of the animal. We know that animals are best produced from two parents who are not related for more diverse genetic code to be healthy, and inbreeding can lead to genetic problems. Animals which have been reduced to a very small breeding population and who are near extinction tend to have breeding problems because of this. We also know that the more diverse a genetically a population is, the greater the chance that there will be members of that population that will be resistant to viruses. One of the reasons that the commercial cavendish banana is now being decimated by massive virus plague, is the fact that in the new world, bananas were commonly propogated asexually which led to very little diversity between different banana plants. It is believed that this has led to a virus that affects that genetic strain that is so predominant being able to wipe out a large percentage of the banana trees in the new world, since there is very little genetic diversity and very little chance of at least some of them being resistant to the virus.

Using cloned animals, could essentially wipe out a large amount of the genetic diversity of the cattle population, to be replaced with a monoculture clone variety. Perhaps as well, the more varied genetic code leads to a more diverse range of nutrition from the organism. It really is a frightening concept that really should be confined to science fiction books, but not allowed in real life.

Re:Cloning an animal rights violation

[Dunbal]

The Dolly the Sheep had a shortened lifespan. Will a number of cows be cloned which will have terrible defects

      Imagine a cow that will reach its full adult weight in just 4 months instead of the years it takes. Imagine a cow that lives half as long but weighs twice as much? Imagine a cow that produces 3 times as much milk, but lives 2 years less? Who cares if it has a shortened lifespan? Oh, yeah, the cow. Because there they are, ticking off the days on a calendar, and realizing that they're living a lot less nowadays. Someone get these cows on Prozac please, they must really be depressed.

      a specific reason why certian genetic code is used for a certian animal, perhaps even influenced by the animals own consciousness before it enters this body.

      Huh?

      Cloning deprives the being of the right to make that choice for themselves regarding the body they will live in

      Right, because you really asked to be born. You chose your parents. You chose which country to live in. You chose your ethnicity. Heh.

      You may call this speculation
      You've got THAT straight.

      but it could very well be true.

      Then I suggest you design a study to prove it. Good luck. In the meantime though I hope you realize that as far as the signal to noise ratio for truth goes, you're on the noise side. This kind of torches and pitchforks mentality is what holds back progress. You are emotionally against cloning yet you are unable to provide a single rational justification for your feeling. So you resort to fabrication. And you want to know the worst bit? The world is full of people who talk out their asses and yet have no idea about what they are saying. Too bad. In 40 years time when you're sick and dying, imagine some doctor telling you "we could have saved you, if only cloning research had been allowed to go ahead..."

Re:Cloning an animal rights violation

[Eravnrekaree]

The metaphysical aspects are what you might call speculation. But that a scientist can basically influence what sort of a body that the creature will live in, since they are able to select a cow for instance that has a feature they like, for good or bad, make hundreds of copies of that cow, and thus force this feature on all of those cloned cows, it is clear that a scientist, who unlike nature, can have an agenda, good intentioned or bad intentioned, but even good intentions can lead to disaster, they can through cloning force their agenda on all of these cows. At least if we leave the genetics that a cow consists of up to nature, its random, nature doesnt have an agenda.

CLoning may have dangers we dont understand yet. Its doing something with living and conscious beings at a very basic level, and is really pretty frightening to me for the above reasons. Its direct manipulation of life, by others, forcing on a being a certian body by others. I feel much better at least leaving it to the chance of nature rather than of scientists who can be corrupt and have evil agendas.

Perhaps there are reasons nature codes and programs DNA over different generations and different organisms that we dont understand, but which are vital. And I think it is the fact that each being is unique and individual, makes each one an individual, special, unique like no other, it adds richness and diversity, which is a good thing. The whole idea of creating huge populations of conformist, identical, robot like clones, who have no individuality or uniqueness, is truly terrifying and there is something deeply troubling and disturbing about it to me.

I think this is all tampering something, the life and even consciousness of being, forcing our ideas of what kind of body they have upon them, that we have no business meddling in.

Re:Cloning an animal rights violation

[ElleyKitten]

Clones are no more reincarnations of their parent than twins are the same person.

Re:Cloning an animal rights violation

[maxume]

Oh but clearly twins are just cases where an unusually strong conciousness inhabits the body and decides to make it into two bodies, and clones are some man making the decision in spite of the conciousness.

There is an infinite supply of idiocy.

Dude...

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently found I have diabetes type 2. Thats the one where you have to watch your diet and take some metformin and other drugs (maybe), and exercise. (BLAH). Boo hoo for me, my Dad has it, my Grandfather on my mom's side, I'd be a little stupid if I wasn't expecting it. In any case, I went to these "Diabetes seminars" put on by the local hospital. There is a nurse, and she talks about how to take care of yourself. Lots of fliers, and basically, she says, don't eat this don't eat that, all the stuff I like. 3 days of seminars, and I have to go visit the nurse and do this and that and the other.

Dude, just eat those kinds of things in small portions/moderation (don't pig out on them), and enjoy them more as an occasional luxury, and sustain yourself with food that is on the approved list. Get the right amount of exercise (SERIOUSLY) and keep your weight down, and you'll do just fine and live a long enjoyable life. If I can stick to this kind of regimen, then so can you. It's not that hard, and the reward is worth it.

Or you can just let your heath go to heck in a handbag and suffer a long prolonged miserable dying period. The choice is yours.

Re:Dude...

[TheRecklessWanderer]

Well thanks for your comments.

I know that exercise is the most important thing. I am SOOO lazy, and it is definitely a life style change.

I think what pisses me the most is they say don't eat anything with fat or carbs. I know this is to get the weight down, and I have lost a fair bit of weight, still got some to go, but much better. The fat and the carbs has nothing to do with the sugar, that's glucose and fructose, right?

I understand the concept of keeping my weight down, and I'm working on that. The nurses don't say why they want you to do something, just to do it. Most of the people in my group were writing everything she said like it was a prophesy from an Eddings novel.

They said inspect your feet, but not what for. Geeze. Anyway, I definitely have no interest in a slow painful death. I want to go out as an 80 year old coot in a Carrera GT with a 20 year old blonde bimbo beside me.

GM is safer than cloned

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue GM foods are much more useful, and from a global point of view, much more safe than cloned plants/animals. A GM food can introduce something functionally useful, like the rice strains that produce thiamine -- that has the potential to save a lot of lives. A cloned animal or plant however, has nothing particularly new to offer, just a little bit more. What you're trading for is a massive increase in disease susceptibility. For example, potato blight killed about a million people in ireland. Now, let's think real hard about this one: do diseases spread faster in heterogeneous or homogeneous populations? One widdle outbreak of a foot & mouth strain that happens to have a predilection for your clone of choice, and oops, we have no cows left!

Pathogens infecting an organism evolve for increased communicability and virulence, in response to the environment (host). While this process can occur on a small scale in a single individual, why give the virus/bacterium/parasite an unlimited opportunity to customize itself to a specific genotype? Large-scale cloning in an agricultural setting is just asking for trouble.

my /. metaphor: who has the bigger security problem -- a bunch of users running a variety of linux distros, or a bunch of users running an identical OS??? Once the virus figures out the exploit to chicken 1, chickens 2 thru 999999 aren't hard to get at.

re: Don't eat this, don't eat that!

[King_TJ]

I couldn't agree more! Every time I read a news article about some supposed concern over eating a food (or the opposite - a recommendation that such-and-such is "good for you"), evidence is brought up challenging their opinion.

Just yesterday, Yahoo News had some piece about 4 things you could do to reduce your risk of cancer, and at least 3 of the 4 were pure speculation and questionable at best! (For example, one "tip" was to use spices like cinnamon, because of it's supposed cancer-inhibiting properties. Funny, because I remember reading an article a few years ago warning people to go lightly on cinnamon consumption since it contains a substance known to be a toxin in animals. Another was not to drink fluids out of plastic bottles that were allowed to freeze or get heated, since "toxins in the plastic could leech into your drink". Excuse me? Freezing should reduce the ability of a chemical to dissolve out of the plastic and into the fluid, no?)

They rarely address another question I've always had. What about the interaction between foods someone eats at the same time? We constantly monitor prescription drug interactions, yet act like it's a non-issue for foods. Just because item X is supposed to be "bad for you" doesn't mean it would be processed in the body the same way if it was mixed with items Y and Z, does it?

Aged cancerous ridden beef

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia I worked on cattle stations for most of my early life. One of the things I learnt is that fast food franchises are not the most fussy purchasers of beef. They tend to purchase very low grade beef. This includes bulls with broken penises, cancer eyes, destructive cysts and other cancers (cancer eye being one of the most prevelant in Australia) and cows who have long since reached their potential of reproducing (dry or otherwise). If you ever smell an animal with cancer you'll never look at eating a hamburger again, but hey, I still love prime quality beef.

I honestly think that if this trend could be changed by making beef cheaper through cloning, the percieved health risks would be minimal compared to the beef currently being sold in lower grades.

Re:Deja-mu

[Anonymous Coward]

We had a milk producing company here called Deja-mu that had milk that tasted just like milk!111

There's many issues mixed together here.

[ahfoo]

Fittingly, since we're at /. the concept of so-called intellectual property is at the heart of the GM debate.
        With an issues like this, it's all about keeping the issues straight. It's nice to see that people in this thread so far mostly don't see the problem with clones. After all, naturally formed human clones, identical twins, are around us all the time so who cares if cows are cloned for food. Indeed, you'd think cloning opponents would be happy to hear that all the cloned cows are going to be butchered.
            The problem with the GM debate is that a bunch of distinct issues get garbled together and it gets spun as the technophiles versus the luddites when it is potentially far more subtle than that. This is not too different to what happens with the issue of adults producing and distributing child pornography and the completely separate issue of children being exposed to sexually explicit images. The first is obviously problematic because it involves an abuse of power, the second issue is far more complex and is generally considered a normal part of growing into an adult. Despite being two separate issues, these two things almost always get balled into one as soon as debates get started and it ends up being the sexually liberal versus the sexually conservative people arguing about irrelevant side issues using one-liners and ad hominem attacks when the real issue is far more subtle and complex than that style of debate allows.
            With GM the problem lies in the distinction between the people opposed to GM products for two different reasons. First, there are those who do, in fact, fear any kind of tampering with the genetic code. Quite separate from those people are another group who merely fear the fact that genetically manipulated organisms can result in products that are protected by patents, copyrights and trademarks. These two groups are worlds apart in mind-set and yet they both get painted with the same brush of being technophobic or anti-intellectual while this is actually almost the opposite of the case for the latter group.

"Abbreviated Telomeres, it's what's for dinner!"

[JonTurner]

>>more supply of the products I use

Right. Even more, 'cause I'm sure as hell not buying that stuff. Honestly, the idea of a big mouthful of meat containing cells with fragile DNA strands is less than appetizing.

Look, if a farmer can't accomplish a fairly simple task such as getting his cows to occasionally fuck and make more, then he probably shouldn't be playing with genetic engineering. Just sayin'

right, tastier food

[treat]

making perfectly marbled beef and reliably lean and tasty pork the norm on grocery shelves.

Why would the food industry sacrifice profit for taste? What is different about beef and pork that would make them produce us high-quality products? Technology is used to provide us lower-quality fruits and vegetables. The quality of produce available in the US is appalling compared to other countries. (althoug it often looks nice!)

Re:right, tastier food

[maxume]

So is it purely a result of asshole corporations, or are stupid consumers that keep buying crap somewhat to blame also?

Enough Already

[TheMeuge]

The fact is that THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE to using cloned animals. The proteins and fats you'll be eating are going to be identical to what they would be in an animal that reproduced the natural way. The only difference is that now when they find an animal that is perfect in terms of its fat-to-meat ratio, they'll clone it so that ALL OF THEM are like that. I have a big problem with people who shy away from recombinant DNA technologies being used in production of foodstuffs, just because they don't understand it. Give it up - you don't understand how 99% of the things you use and consume are manufactured, yet you use them anyway. It's not voodoo, it's not magic... it's science. So will you please leave the science to the people who understand it, and enjoy the beautiful, tasty, and safe steak put before you!

"I have concerns about food from cloned animals because I read that cloned animals have genetic problems."

Considering how focused you are on "I", it's unsurprising that you've "read" about the "genetic problems" of cloned animals. By "read" I'll presume you mean a conspiracy theorist website... and by "genetic problems" I'll presume you mean... well... nothing.

Re:Enough Already

[LordNimon]

"In 1999 research was published in the journal Nature suggesting that Dolly may have been susceptible to premature aging, due to shortened telomeres in her cells. It was speculated that these were passed on from her donor sibling, who was six years old when the genetic material was taken from her, so that Dolly may have been genetically six years old at birth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_the_sheep

Re:Enough Already

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

[Channeling=Cartman] Should make for some interseting veal. [/Cartman]

Re:Enough Already

[Surt]

The fact is that THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE to using cloned animals.

That's just blatantly false. The facts are unknown, and there are legitimate scientific reasons to believe that cloned meat might be dangerous. It's certainly worthy of study before we decide one way or another.

Re:Enough Already

[TheMeuge]

Please, please oh please site those "legitimate scientific reasons".

Re:Enough Already

[TheMeuge]

Yes, and?

Dolly may have been genetically six years old... but the composition of her tissues still consisted of proteins that are sequencially identical to the wild-type sheep. So tell me, where does the caring part come in? Is she going to hurt you with her shortened telomeres?

This is akin to saying that you don't want your meat to be delivered on a truck that had a flat tire.

Re:Enough Already

[Surt]

The main one is that since we know that all current cloning technologies cause genetic damage to the clone, we don't know to what extent that genetic damage might cause the resulting meat to be dangerous to consume. It might be perfectly safe, but there's no study to prove that. There's also no study to prove it unsafe.

But why not do the study, instead of just hoping it's safe?

Re:Enough Already

[TheMeuge]

Again, you're simply denying reality. Of course there are studies proving that it's safe.

Try this one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7465286/

Re:Enough Already

[Surt]

I'm sorry, that's the completely wrong kind of study.

I'll be waiting for a study comparing the long term health effects on consumers, thanks.

Not a static analysis of the contents. I mean seriously, did you even read that article? That gave you confidence in the safety of cloned meat?

Re:Enough Already

[Surt]

To put it another way:

I have one batch of dinners covered with an instantly deadly poison, a second batch covered with a poison that will kill you in 10 years, and another, otherwise identical batch of dinners, not covered with poison.

I provide a scientific study that shows no difference between the three for 200 different dimensions of testing. Quite unfortunate that none of those 200 dimensions happened to test for the poisons, but oh well, you can't catch everything.

Are you equally comfortable eating any batch, or would you prefer to wait to see what the long term health effects of eating from the three batches are? Would you at least like to wait and see which batch kills people instantly?

Re:Enough Already

[TheMeuge]

A good analogy to what you're proposing is this:

- A new way of purifying water was invented
- The resulting liquid was analyzed by mass-spectrometry, NMR, IR and all other tools in the disposal of modern science. The study determined that the liquid that comes out of the machine is absolutely pure H2O, completely identical to all other water, and containing no additives
- You propose that we have to conduct a long-term study comparing the effects of drinking water to drinking water.

Re:Enough Already

[kiatoa]

You are a biologist, nutritionist, biochemist, geneticist etc? By what authority do you assert that the protiens are identical? I don't trust that they are identical. More importantly I don't trust that other, more subtle, chemical/biological changes haven't taken place. All I want is a label so I can make an informed decision when I go to the supermarket. This tiny cost is apparently a big deal to you. The beef already has a label. Add one or two more words and we're done. I suspect you wish to force your values (anything goes, big business can do no wrong, the free market is perfect) on the population. If cloning really works and saves so much money and doesn't have any unintended consequences then with labeling it should still "win" in the market.

Personall, I find your faith in our corporate overlords disturbing.

Re:Enough Already

[Surt]

Yes, that would be a good idea. Because you don't know what your tools aren't telling you about the water.
But even if you cannot be convinced that there could actually be a danger in your water analogy, water is also a very simple molecule, so the parallel is not as good as you think. Picking out a small number of inverted proteins in cloned beef may well be beyond our current technology to detect.

Re:Enough Already

[TheMeuge]

Well, I am a biologist... and a biochemist... and a geneticist... so that was lost on me.

I assert that the proteins are identical by the peptide sequence... and the composition of the component amino acids. If neither has changed, then yes, the proteins are identical... and this has already been shown true. I don't know what you're going on about. It's clear that when you say "more subtle changes" you have no idea of what you're talking about.

"I suspect you wish to force your values (anything goes, big business can do no wrong, the free market is perfect) on the population."
^ What the hell was that about? What, when you run out of arguments in the face of facts, you revert to just inventing stuff and finger-pointing?

"Personall, I find your faith in our corporate overlords disturbing."
^ That does signify the end of our discussion and the addition of your name to my ignore list. You invoke the magic "evil corporation" rhetoric, while I was presenting scientific fact. You might as well have accused me of having "fuzzy math". Anyway... enjoy your tinfoil hat, and goodbye.

Re:Enough Already

[radtea]

The study determined that the liquid that comes out of the machine is absolutely pure H2O, completely identical to all other water

Trivially false statements like this one are why people don't trust naive corporate apologists who say, "Trust us, it's exactly the same as some other stuff you already eat, but our profit margin is bigger!"

What you are describing is distilled water: "The most toxic commercial beverages that people consume (i.e. cola beverages and other soft drinks) are made from distilled water. Studies have consistently shown that heavy consumers of soft drinks (with or without sugar) spill huge amounts of calcium, magnesium and other trace minerals into the urine. The more mineral loss, the greater the risk for osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, hypothyroidism, coronary artery disease, high blood pressure and a long list of degenerative diseases generally associated with premature aging."

So your example is in fact an excellent one. Of why naive corporate apologists should not be taken at face value when displaying their abject ignorance regarding matters of consumer health.

Re:Enough Already

[TheMeuge]

"Naive corporate apologists"?

I am a scientist, you braindead monkey.

Says One Cannibal To Another

[ackthpt]

When I first read the headline I thought it said, "FDA Set To Approve Products from Cloned Clowns"

Says one Cannibal to another, "This food tastes funny."

Re: Labels

[TheMeuge]

Actually the label SHOULD say:

"This beef is NOT CLONED. It contains 20% more fats than the cloned one next to it... doesn't taste as good... and costs 3X as much... please enjoy."

Logical Flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

the regulations are highly flawed. But without them, it is clear that corporations would try and succeed in getting away with murder

How can you make a general conclusion about the necessity of government regulation ("yes") based on the current state of affairs, where government is deeply entangled in the market and has been (increasingly) for years? For christ's sake, the US economy is one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world!

Is it possible you're skipping over something important here, son? Like maybe your other case study?

be afraid instead

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like most people are missing this...

I'm no scientist, but correct me if I'm wrong -

if a deadly outbreak of some virus hits a large population, there will normally be a subset of that population that will be immune.

what happens when the whole population is cloned from one individual?

what happens when a nations cattle supply is wiped out overnight?

Re:be afraid instead

[JonTurner]

>>what happens when a nations cattle supply is wiped out overnight?

What happens? Bush gets the blame. Next question, please.

No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> But groups opposed to the new technology, including a coalition of powerful
> food companies concerned that the public will reject Dolly-the-Lamb chops
> and clonal cream in their coffee, have not given up.

Ummm, this makes no sense. Some food companies are opposed because they're concerned the public will reject it?

Methinks they're concerned because the public will accept it and not reject it, hurting their business. And, as usual, they "have not given up" using the government's monopoly on legal violence to put the competition out of business.

We're in trouble

[fury88]

I guess this could put the future of Enterprise's food replicator in doubt.

Patent Number on the Beef

[Maximum Prophet]

You'll be able to tell you beef was cloned by the patent number on the package and the warning to not clone it yourself. "No asexual reproduction of this beef is allowed"

For those of you that think this is a joke, some roses bushes come with this warning, why not meat? I'm sure they will also start listing specific genes that are patented. I for one, welcome our Brave New World Overlords.

Re:Patent Number on the Beef

[Anonymous Coward]

Encode the patent number in the DNA ?

Motivations?

[El_Smack]

"But groups opposed to the new technology, including a coalition of powerful food companies concerned that the public will reject Dolly-the-Lamb chops and clonal cream in their coffee, have not given up."

The groups opposed to this have every right to oppose it, but if food companies are concerned the public will reject it, they can just label it "100% clone free" and charge a premium. The organic food guys are doing that, and have made a nice business of it. I'm thinking there is something else motivating them, and it's probably profit, but I'm not quite sure what the crux of the problem is.

pleh fat is icky

[RingDev]

It's the Blood that makes it taste good. How do you think they get the beef flavor in tofu burgers?

-Rick

food in the waste....

[Anonymous Coward]

first:english not primary language, I do try my best...

diversity is what make your life interesting.
diversity is what give you choices to make.

and to make it clear for the nerds:imagine you could not make argue about the merits of Atari vs Amiga because there would have been freaking clone of each others !

ps:Amiga was way better for games :p

Banana's

[Anonymous Coward]

Having big herds of animals with the same gene deffects living in close quarters means big trouble. They should learn from the banana industry and their Cavendish variety.

I thought cloning was immoral, Mr. President.

[DudemanX]

I don't have a real opinion on this, but do cows not have souls or something? If it's ok to clone animals to eat what makes it any less ethical to clone super models as fuck toys? I don't know if they'll be able to outlaw cloning of any kind but how much of a stretch would it be for some corporation to buy equipment for cloning livestock and then modify it for people? With the amount of money and power insurance companies have these days how long will it be untill we have one like in "The Island"?

There are still too many questions for me to pass judgement just yet. I imagine it could be an interesting issue for the republicans to see how the religious right weighs it vs big business. I can see how this would be helpfull to a lot of people but it does seem like this slope just may be a bit too slippery for my taste.

This is a terrible idea. Evolution stops here.

[JustNiz]

One problem with cloning is that if all animals of a particular species become exactly the same, we loose mllions of years worth of genetic variation caused by natural mutation and selection.

Also we lose the associated benefits of variation such as different animals haveing different levels of immunity to different diseases. Having all your eggs in one basket is a REALLY bad idea.

Re:This is a terrible idea. Evolution stops here.

[Dunbal]

we loose mllions of years worth of genetic variation caused by natural mutation and selection.

      True. And false. We've lost MOST of the variety through breeding anyway. Also natural mutation doesn't provide ideal creatures, only different ones. And selection - well now WE are the ones doing the selecting, according to what WE need and not what random climactic or geological events dictate. Why should we put up with the inefficient cow nature provided -one that was well adapted to its role BEFORE modern agriculture but not ideally adapted to its modern "niche", when we can create a better cow that is more suited to its current role?

Also we lose the associated benefits of variation such as different animals haveing different levels of immunity to different diseases. Having all your eggs in one basket is a REALLY bad idea.

      Here finally is an argument that DOES make sense, as a potential danger. But first, we will adopt the cow that is naturally resistent to all the diseases we know of. This is part of what we are looking for in our ideal cow. This only leaves us open to the animal being vulnerable to a newly mutated pathogen, and I agree it's a risk in any monoculture. This is solved by keeping adequate vigilance, isolation, and hygene. And at worst, I'm sure the entire original stock is not going to be killed off, that would be foolish.

      An interesting point you make in the subject line - but evolution does NOT stop just because you manipulated genes. The new "supercows" can also continue to mutate. There's nothing stopping that. What we'll lose is the variety that sexual reproduction brings, but to be frank we've bred out most of the differences already anyway. But random mutations will STILL occur.

Re:This is a terrible idea. Evolution stops here.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'd like to believe this, I present as a counterexample, the case of the banana.

Not only is it a monoculture as a result of cloning, but we've gone through at least two entire species (which are now extinct) in the past fifty years. They're just hoping they find a suitable replacement for the current banana species before the coming plague kills off all the Cavendish bananas.=

Re:This is a terrible idea. Evolution stops here.

[JustNiz]

OK, just assuming adequate vigilance, isolation, and hygene never ever fails:

So what happens in the case where someone finds a significant problem with the milk/meat itself from that breed that can't be fixed quickly by further genetic manipulation? By killing off other breeds we've just lost our backup plan.

Label please. Canada is next.

[sherriw]

As a Canadian I know that what happens in the US eventually comes to Canada. I don't want clone food for sale at all... but at the BARE minimum I want labels.

I can already bet the the fast food industry will be all over this technology. In fact I bet they are a big part of the lobbying in favor of it.

Personally I will not eat cloned meat if I can avoid it. It just feels like humans are really crossing the line of what's decent and right. How long until all the cows left in north america are clones of just a handful of 'originals'? Gross.

Although... we are destroying this planet and the life on it pretty effectively... this is just another side of that coin.

Re:Label please. Canada is next.

[Dunbal]

I don't want clone food for sale at all.

      You've been eating genetically modified food all your life. What, you think that domesticated animals and plants carry the same genes as the wildtype?

How long until all the cows left in north america are clones of just a handful of 'originals'? Gross.

      Guess what...they already are very, very similar through NON laboratory means - ie selective breeding. So we go from a an almost identical set of genes to a completely identical one. Big deal.

The producers should be concerned, not only us...

[hummassa]

If I have a huge ultramegafarm with 50000 cows, all cloned, and there is a vulnerability (susceptibility to a specific bacteria, etc) in the matrix cow, this is a nice piece of information to my competitors... and a nice way to create artificially-inflated prices. Bye-bye all cows in one simple splat.

Monoculture!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem comes from having less genetic diversity in the population. Yeah, I know that there's not a whole lot of it to begin with, but if all of the cows were IDENTICAL, then they would be extremeley vulnerable to epidemics. For an unknown disease that's never existed in cows before, there are bound to be some cows that are more likely to resist it than others. The less the diversity, the greater the risk of eventual catastrophic failure.

There is a an actual difference?

[Chayak]

I don't see what the anti clone groups are up in arms about. So you'll have herds of cows with the same DNA. If you believe what they say then all identical twins and such are evil as well as they are esentially natural clones.

LOL Breading != Breeding

[RingDev]

Good catch. Sometimes my own type-o's get a chuckle out of me. That was definately one of them.

-Rick

It destroys the market

[ZeroExistenZ]

Lower prices means more business opportunities, which means a stronger economic outlook for those who can't afford the high barrier to entry created by the high cost to breed cattle.

More business opportunities for whom? This will discriminate against farmers who cannot afford cloning technology and cannot go under their price without loss. Once the farmers are out of business, the quality will drop as a result of lack of competition.

Now consider the US having a "cloned meat" industry, which grows steadily because of the cheap(er) meat produced. It starts exporting, destroying local markets and gaining a great market-share, yet invading and destroying the local markets... It's the same way as China produces shoes and drops them on markets around the world under-priced. Once the competition is destroyed, they raise the price again and strengthen their monopolies.

In the long run, "cloned meat" export from the US will be limited and heavily taxed, so the price will be comparable to the meat on the local market. Making the tag "cloned" a disadvantage.

I don't care what you do in the US with it, just don't bring it over here.

What?

[Poromenos1]

Yeah, right. Have you ever heard anyone say "Broccoli is bad for you?" Noooo, it's always chocolate or Coke or masturbation!

innacurate

[cmdr_tofu]

phantomlord was inaccurate: "Further, the products will likely not be branded as such and there is no way to know if we're currently consuming products from cloned animals." I am vegan, so I have a way to know if I'm currently consuming products from cloned animals. Unless they are injecting
clone cowmilk in my black coffee, or someone is sneaking a cloned cow into my pot of garbanzo beans when I am not looking, I am fairly certain I'm not
consuming any animal products cloned or otherwise.

lack of diversity

[Xtravar]

Currently, food populations that are produced by cloning are incredibly susceptible to disease. See bananas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana

I really don't like the idea of cloning cows for food.

Moo

[Chacham]

I think i'm a clone now, cus there's always two of me just a moo-ing around....

this is the opposite of GM

[r00t]

GM means weird changes. (good ones, if you trust the corporation...)

Cloning means NO changes.

But as you say, there are other issues: grass-fed (yummy) or corn-fed (gaaa... all my food tastes like corn, from salmon to soda!), free-range (lean) or feedlot (greasy), etc. BTW, you can buy nice beef and unusual meat over the net. It's shipped in dry ice.

We need to go beyond cloning. The solution is a matter replicator.

Re:this is the opposite of GM

[xappax]

grass-fed (yummy) or corn-fed

You forgot "cement-fed" - most cows eat a crazy mix of corn, manure, and cement (not sure why, but it's true).

Re:this is the opposite of GM

[maxume]

The calcium carbonate(cement) is an antacid; the corn gives them mad indigestion.

I'm definitely not excited.

[jd]

Cloning, at present, is unreliable and unstable. Few clones survive, but it is not fully understood why. Dolly the sheep aged rapidly and it is still not fully understood what mechanism caused this. Because we know about mitochondrial DNA and have now seen bacteria on the verge of becoming totally integrated with cells, we can conclusively say that cells are highly complex chimera. Simply copying one bit of the cell - even if it is the nucleic DNA - may be insufficient to produce an accurate clone. (In fact, attempts to clone cats have yielded very mixed results. The animals have identical nucleic DNA, so are technically clones, but share almost no other characteristics including eye and hair colour. The ability to predict anything was so infinitesimally small that the company doing this folded a few days ago.)

Until there has been a lot more research on how the internals of the cell interoperate, and thus raise the limits on what they can predict, the science simply doesn't exist to be able to back the argument that this is either safe or useful. I'm not saying that cloning can't be made safe, what I am saying is that the success rate for predicting what will happen is so abysmal that we cannot simply assume that cloning will be safe.

Forcing companies to label doesn't work in the US, perhaps. In the UK, the labelling is somewhat better enforced and standardized. I'd consider a box of eggs in the UK marked as "free range" as having a much higher probability of actually being so than anything comparable in the US. Consumer watchdogs aren't perfect in the UK, but do have more bite. (So much so that when "Top Gear" rated one car company as junk, it virtually abandoned all operations in the country.) Specialist stores, such as the "Real Meat Company", do their own research, which places limits on what farmers feel they can get away with. After the BSE (and nvCJD) scares, where farming malpractices nearly bankrupted the farming economy, people aren't quite so willing to cut corners. They do anyway - that's a built-in self-destruct mechanism - but just not as often. It's unclear whether Prince Charles advocating better farming practices helps or hinders the practice.

In the US, if a producer can get away with something, they will probably try and will likely succeed. The US is the only country I know of where a producer of goods can successfully sue consumer protection groups to prevent publication of anything unfavourable, even if that puts consumers at risk, and where "quality control" is so much of an obscenity that the marketroids now talk of "assurance" instead. The US is also the only country I know where farmers have been successfully sued because their fields have been contaminated with genetically engineered material. The UK is far from perfect - they tried to keep caterpillers genetically modified to produce scorpion venom in a field by putting a barbed-wire fence around it. Stupidity at heights hitherto unreached by mankind. But that is my entire point. Those involved - in any of these countries - are stupid, corrupt, negligent and/or greedy, and should not be trusted with anything sharper than a beanbag. They should definitely NOT be permitted within a thousand miles of a cloning facility.

Cloning is also very very expensive, going to the last point, and has something like a 1% success rate. This means that not only will you have much less certainty over the quality, consistancy or safety, but it'll also be hundreds of times more expensive, in order for the farmer to get any kind of profit from the deal.

Given the wastage in the syatem, in which a lot of meat rots before it sells, you'd get vastly superior yield (and therefore vastly lower prices) by improving refrigeration techniques and having stores manage their stock better. Meat is trasnsported frozen in a way that will likely cause cellular damage, then placed on shelves in a way that inevitably causes thawing and decay. You'd waste much less by using radiation treatment to eliminate bacteria OR freezing with liquid nitrogen, then keeping shelves at -30C or so.

Cloned Cow! Mmmm!

[Zenaku]

Just be careful when you go into your local greasy spoon and order "the double."

OK

[Quiet_Desperation]

Broccoli is bad for you. It's depressing.

The issue at "Steak"...

[nakedforjesus]

...is not cloning. Cloning just gives you a twin of the "donor" animal and takes the risk out of animal husbandry by providing consistency. The word itself serves to scare/thrill the uninformed, making journalists cream their pants and putting marketing executives off their lunch.
The quality of the animal as food for us, in terms of nutritional, health or asthetic values, is affected by all sorts of variables after the animal is born. So what we should be looking at is how these animals which feed us are raised. Are they couped up or are they able to move around? Are they kept in an environment which demands the heavy use of antibiotics? Are they fed a natural diet or are they given only corn? Are they slaughtered cleanly? Are they trucked/flown to markets thousands of miles away or do they stay in the community?
Whether or not the animal is a clone doesn't really play into that.

BTW. People shouldn't complain about organic food being so expensive, instead they should be asking why is non-organic food so cheap...

Information is the key to efficiency.

[Kadin2048]

that free flow from producers to consumers DOES NOT MATTER, especially since we have the Net.

Your entire point seems to be that the flow of information from producer to consumer doesn't matter, because the consumers can get that information elsewhere.

Okay, I'll accept that to a certain extent, but it's not really saying that "information doesn't matter," it's just that the source of the information is basically irrelevant, as long as you trust/believe it.

If I want to buy some apples, I can either drive around to all the stores selling apples and look at them, or I can ask my friends where they've gotten good apples. Either way, I'm getting information. In the latter case I'm probably getting better information, and can thus make a better decision, because I'm asking people whose opinions I trust.

Information is critical to the functioning of an efficient marketplace. If the producer doesn't give accurate information about the good they're selling, then a customer is going to have to buy it and then tell others about it (or, more realistically, someone buys one and reverse-engineers it). This isn't a benefit, it's a burden. If the information had been available to begin with, then this reviewing process wouldn't have to happen. As a result of information not being immediately available, the market will manufacture it -- but this process is itself an inefficiency.

More information leads to better purchasing decisions and evaluations of value, which leads to less waste. Less waste means higher efficiency. Efficiency is a Good Thing.

From the producer's side, they benefit from increased information as well -- it's not just consumers that want to know. If you produce a good, and have access to information as to what price it's selling for in various markets, then you can decide whether to sell it locally or transport it (provided you have the transportation costs). Without that knowledge, you might just sell it locally and not make as much profit as you would otherwise.

The biggest benefit of the Internet is that it allows for the fast exchange of information. Markets have traditionally existed only across the same spans that you can transmit information easily. If you're selling apples in one city and I'm selling them in another, and we have no idea what the price of apples is in the other's city, then they're basically disconnected markets. But if there's a telegraph or stock ticker set up between them, and we know the transportation cost, then the markets become integrated because of the flow of information. (If you want a real-world example of this, you can look at the New York and Philadelphia stock markets in the 19th century before and after the introduction of the telegraph. Prior to that, the same stock or commodity might trade on each one, completely independent of the other market. With the telegraph, they became integrated and began following each other almost overnight.) The biggest benefit of the 'net is that it creates one large market out of disparate ones, by facilitating the real-time flow of information from one place to another.

You can only achieve the theoretical peak efficiency of the market, what's known as Pareto efficiency, if everyone has perfect information. Any deviation from that produces inefficiency and waste, and that means that somebody is not making as much profit as they otherwise would have.

Re:Information is the key to efficiency.

[dada21]

That's a great comment, one reason you're a friend on here :)

I'm going to reply to it deeper on my blog tomorrow, but I'll try to capture my opinion quickly here:

Your entire point seems to be that the flow of information from producer to consumer doesn't matter, because the consumers can get that information elsewhere. Okay, I'll accept that to a certain extent, but it's not really saying that "information doesn't matter," it's just that the source of the information is basically irrelevant, as long as you trust/believe it.

And? Honest question: are you just saying this to yourself? Because for me, EVERYONE is irrelevant unless we believe or disbelieve it. I trust my doctor (AAPS, not AMA), but I don't trust yours. I trust my father, but not my mother. I trust my wife to take care of me, but not handle my money. I trust my employees to work the bare minimum that I require, but I don't trust them to maximize my profit. I don't trust the State, at all. Most people don't, except where they feeling they're getting something for nothing.

Information is critical to the functioning of an efficient marketplace. If the producer doesn't give accurate information about the good they're selling, then a customer is going to have to buy it and then tell others about it (or, more realistically, someone buys one and reverse-engineers it). This isn't a benefit, it's a burden. If the information had been available to begin with, then this reviewing process wouldn't have to happen. As a result of information not being immediately available, the market will manufacture it -- but this process is itself an inefficiency.

It's a burden ONCE. You share that burden with others who share their burdens with you -- all work is a burden until that work is a commodity enough to automate. Then we work on some new burden to make it efficient.

The biggest benefit of the Internet is that it allows for the fast exchange of information. Markets have traditionally existed only across the same spans that you can transmit information easily. If you're selling apples in one city and I'm selling them in another, and we have no idea what the price of apples is in the other's city, then they're basically disconnected markets. But if there's a telegraph or stock ticker set up between them, and we know the transportation cost, then the markets become integrated because of the flow of information. (If you want a real-world example of this, you can look at the New York and Philadelphia stock markets in the 19th century before and after the introduction of the telegraph. Prior to that, the same stock or commodity might trade on each one, completely independent of the other market. With the telegraph, they became integrated and began following each other almost overnight.) The biggest benefit of the 'net is that it creates one large market out of disparate ones, by facilitating the real-time flow of information from one place to another.

Which is why the Net is the most anarcho-capitalist society in the world's history. People don't realize it, but it is. We are free to boycott those we don't want to barter with (except the State). We are free to buy and sell without intervention (except some risk of the State finding out). We are free to discuss anonymously or in full disclosure of who we are (like I do, always). We are free to investigate and re-investigate. We are free to congregate and segregate as we wish. We are free to lie and be caught in lying by others.

The Net leads to anarcho-capitalism. Why else would I embrace it so fully?

Re:Information is the key to efficiency.

[jdavidb]

or I can ask my friends where they've gotten good apples. Either way, I'm getting information. In the latter case I'm probably getting better information

Yes. Key insight. In general, if government mandated providing the information, it's much more likely to be substandard, or not exactly the information you needed, or unsuitable in some other way. Worse, since government force is involved and since the government is influenceable, what may be happening is that the government mandates are used to mandate providing information that makes one product appear more favorable, when if a different set of information were provided, another product would win out.

Information is critical to the functioning of an efficient marketplace. If the producer doesn't give accurate information about the good they're selling, then a customer is going to have to buy it and then tell others about it (or, more realistically, someone buys one and reverse-engineers it). This isn't a benefit, it's a burden. If the information had been available to begin with, then this reviewing process wouldn't have to happen. As a result of information not being immediately available, the market will manufacture it -- but this process is itself an inefficiency.

Providing the information is a cost that has to be borne no matter what if you want the information. Having the government mandate it does not make providing it cost free. It does, however, mandate a one-size-fits-all set of information that will probably only be the best choice for a limited number of people: many people would probably prefer to pay less and receive less information, or pay more and receive more information, or receive a different set of information (they don't care about trans-fats but are interested in the exact pesticides used, for example). But government force sets it in concrete and makes it impossible for the market to adapt to what we really want.

Re:Information is the key to efficiency.

[An Onerous Coward]

What, precisely, is stopping the manufacturers from providing more information than the FDA does? If you want to say exactly how much molybdenum is in your product, and the FDA doesn't require that information, there is nothing stopping you.

It's a different situation for health claims, but all the FDA requires is that you demonstrate that the claim is backed by a good deal of scientific consensus. I really doubt the world would be better off if General Mills could put "CURES CANCER" on every box of cereal. But it would make their cereal sell better, and isn't that the holy grail of free market capitalism? So, yes, we should let food manufacturers go crazy, with their absurd claims in bold fonts.

I triple dog dare you to give me a single example of how FDA labeling rules prevent manufacturers from giving me useful, accurate information.

Re:Information is the key to efficiency.

[jdavidb]

What, precisely, is stopping the manufacturers from providing more information than the FDA does?

The economic incentive to provide more information is stifled in many ways. Consumers are led by the government that they trust (for some inexplicable reason) to feel that the information provided is "enough," so the market for providing information goes down on that count. Competition is suppressed because the market for the government-selected level of information is artificially increased (people who'd pay less for less info are forced into this market, and people who'd pay more for more info are led to believe they don't have to), so there's less incentive to try to go after that smaller market.

I really doubt the world would be better off if General Mills could put "CURES CANCER" on every box of cereal. But it would make their cereal sell better, and isn't that the holy grail of free market capitalism? So, yes, we should let food manufacturers go crazy, with their absurd claims in bold fonts.

Who would believe such an absurd claim? And if they did, wouldn't the information about the truth get out?

I triple dog dare you to give me a single example of how FDA labeling rules prevent manufacturers from giving me useful, accurate information.

But that's a strawman, since I never argued that providing more information was prevented. Just that the market for it is suppressed.

Re:Information is the key to efficiency.

[An Onerous Coward]

"CURES CANCER" might be too big a stretch for most people. But there have been plenty of studies showing that baseless claims sell products. Just look at the whole dietary supplements industry for proof. If manufacturers are given the ability to make whatever claim they like, there will be an immediate arms race to see who can make the most remarkable claims, and the public is surprisingly credulous, especially when there is no easy way to substantiate or debunk the claim.* It's happened plenty often enough in the past (see Marion Nestle's Food Politics).

* You know the old saying, "If I tell you that the galaxy has 300 billion stars, you'll nod. If I tell you that the paint on this wall is wet, you'll touch it to make sure."

Mad Cow Disease

[spycker]

I don't know why we NEED cloned cows or genetically modified anything? The developed world seems well fed (i.e. obese) and the developing world seems just to need peace to feed itself.

Remember mad cow disease? Wait til the next food source is tainted with some new prion like health hazard. It took them several years to figure that one out. I just wish that all the idiots in favor of the genetically modified are the ones to go "vegetable" brain on us since they are the closest ones to it as it is. Die you dim witted assholes.

Correction

[rhombic]

Oops, "even if they have 0.99g per serving" should have read "even if they have 0.49g per serving".

Going Bananas over Monoculture

[Kelson]

The real danger here is a homogenized feed stock.

An analog would be the world's banana crop. There are a number of varieties of banana, but the one most often seen in the west, the Cavendish, has been bred to such a level of homogeneity that there are real concerns that a single disease could wipe it out worldwide. In fact, that's exactly what happened in the 1960s to the then-dominant banana, the Gros Michel (same link). Banana growers had to find a replacement variety that consumers would accept, then retool their operations around it. Big surprise, the disease that wiped that one out has already evolved to attack the Cavendish.

No reason for labeling in this instance.

[Kadin2048]

I think product labeling is important, but I'm not sure whether this particular case is one worth regulating.

There are definitely situations where product labeling is important, and has benefited the consumer greatly by allowing easier comparisons. The basic nutrition information on food, the window stickers on new cars, energy consumption measurements on appliances, for examples.

However, in the case of cloned food, as long as it's actually safe to consume, I don't think there necessarily has to be a labeling requirment mandated by the government just because of people's (irrational, IMO) squeamishness. If people don't want cloned food, then there will be companies marketing "Clone Free" food, and they can buy it.

If people mark their products wrongly -- if you sell something as "Clone Free" that's knowingly made from cloned parts -- then you're committing fraud and should be prosecuted appropriately.

Outside of basic nutrition and safety, I don't really see a place for regulation here. Clone-free, GMO-free, and Organic foods ought to be managed like Kosher foods are -- if people want to buy them, they can look for the symbol of a trusted, indepenent certification organization. As long as the labels aren't applied fradulently, and the food isn't unsafe to eat, then there's no problem.

I don't think most people will really care. The Organic-foods set might look for the Clone-free label, more out of a knee-jerk response than anything else, but most people will continue to buy their favorite brand of beef jerky regardless of whether they're cloned or not. If they don't care, and there's no rational reason why cloned foods are unhealthy versus regular ones, then I don't see why their needs to be labeling requirements handed down by the government. If enough people want un-cloned food, they will be able to buy it by going to Whole Foods or Trader Joe's.

Re:No reason for labeling in this instance.

[skelly33]

"... as long as it's actually safe to consume..."

That's a pretty big 'if' there, don't you think? Who are you going to trust to tell you that it's safe to consume? The government/military who forces G.I.'s to consume experimental medications? The FDA who allows for the consumption of tobacco and alcohol despite the known detrimental effects? How "safe" is Botox to consume? How safe are any of the hundreds of other products that have historically been released and then pulled off the shelves after it was later found that they were indeed NOT safe to consume?

I take very serious issue with the tampering of the gene pool. Genetically plants and animals - and humans - have arrived at where they are today through a VERY thorough natural selection process. Human experimentation with DNA for purposes of research is OK in my book - knowledge is power. Human experimentation with the DNA of the food supply of the general populous is NOT OK.

What am I worried about? Well one thing's for sure: it's not knocking 5 years off my lifespan or anything so trivial. It's my cautionary imagination of a future where we or various species of plants or livestock are rendered sterile from too much tampering and we don't notice until the very last naturally fertile breeder is extinct. Too far fetched? Who can give me a guarantee?

"They" don't remotely understand well enough the effects of DNA manipulation to label this as safe for consumption.

Re:No reason for labeling in this instance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who can give me a guarantee?

Hell, I can take a crap in a box and slap a guarrantee on it for you, if that's what you want.

Re:No reason for labeling in this instance.

[skelly33]

Exactly - that's not a guarantee, it's a deception. I want no part in it.

Re:No reason for labeling in this instance.

[networkBoy]

Which is all fine and dandy, wxcept cloning does not alter the DNA.
So Fricken There.

What you are bitching about is GMO foods, and I agree there may be cause for concern with the BT toxin grafted into corn (for an example). In the case of cloned foods no alteration has been made to the genome, thus the label "CLONE".

By the way, do you like wine? Most wine grapes are clones.
Do you like African Violates? They are propagated by cloning.
How 'bout irisis? Clones? Yep!

Shall I continue?
-nB

Deal

[umbrellasd]

And if 50% of your population is a twin? And you are all susceptible to . Oh, gee! I knew nature evolved sexual reproduction and has continued to use if for hundreds of millions of years for some reason.

Yes, let's just tell Mother Nature that she and her hundreds of millions of years of experience can go fuck Themselves. Why, oh why didn't asexual poultry evolve naturally? Or asexual everything for that matter. Just get it right the first darn time and go with what works! Yeah, that's the thing! Until it doesn't work. No problem! We'll just use biodiversity and genetic variance to produce...oh, snap!

All the people that do not see how screwed up and arrogant our approach is are idiots and the will make a wreck of our planet through apathy and ignorance despite anyone else's best most well-considered efforts. Sure we'll probably survive, but we'll suffer a Hell of a lot more than we had to. Just like a rebellious teenager that ignores the wisdom of their elders.

Re: Corporate Cynicism

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not *kill*. That would trigger a government *shutdown*, which most companies except the Airlines and Microsoft would have trouble with.

Instead, only maim your customers, tenderly and slowly, with extra Mint flavor included.

moderators on crack again

[doti]

Why, oh why, is this modded down?

I've read all the comments so far, and this is the single most insightful one.
Specially the last sentence.

Inevitable conversation at grocery store

[eclectro]

Hey, that's a nice cut of clone you have there!

Mitochondrial DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

Mitochondrial DNA. Look it up, try and comprehend.

I would post more but Slashdot deleted my last post that dispelled the myths of trans fat so I can't be bothered to post more as it will probably just get deleted anyway.

NewsFlash

[Un pobre guey]

Cowtown, Iowa, October 17, 2006 (UP) - Animal husbandry industry scientists announced a revolutionary system for industrializing the cultivation of all types of commercially important mammals from single cells. The process is claimed to approach 100% reliability and uses no hazardous laboratory materials of any kind. It is so simple, elegant, and powerful, scientists claim, that deployment even in Third World countries should be practical and economically viable.

The process consists in using live animal tissue to host single cells derived from animals that have been shown to have desirable commercial properties. Such cells are available in the live tissue samples as part of natural cyclical biochemical events and processes. The tissue sample itself need not be removed from the host animal. It can be left in situ, thus taking advantage of the natural, complex milieux of nutrients and biological messenger molecules that are present within the host organism.

In order to trigger the events necessary for whole-animal generation, the cell must be placed in contact with a special bath containing certain unique triggering cells, all most all of which are lost after the process is complete and do not contaminate or interfere with subsequent nascent animal specimen development. For a variety of genetic and biochemical reasons, these cells must be obtained from a different animal from the host, and this donor animal must also be carefully screened for desirable commercial traits. Fortunately, the cell suspension is largely or wholly produced within the donor animal naturally, and transfer of the cell suspension is readily performed under conditions that can be orchestrated in most or all animal husbandry facilities. A special transfer probe for the cell suspension can usually already be found on some part of the donor animal.

Once the cell suspension has been transferred to the tissue sample within the host animal, scientsits claim, an enormously complex series of biochemical events ensue. Most of the complexity occurs after the suspension comes in contact with the hosted cell, and later dissipates harmlessly. The donor cells induce changes in the hosted cell, which immediately result in cell division and growth. The cell is typically left within the host animal, where it adheres to nearby mucosal tissue and continues a lengthy process of cell division and tissue differentiation, lasting weeks or months if the process is successful.

Once the process is complete, and the newly fashioned animal is ready to be harvested, additional biochemical events cause the expulsion of the product animal from the host. This can be done safely enough for the host animal to be reused, often repeatedly, be proper location of the cell, its host tissue sample, and the donor animal's cell suspension deposition probe. None of this process requires any further equipment or materials than the biological structures and materials that are typically already present in commonly available barnyard animals.

The researchers, and in particular their corporate sponsors, are convinced that the process is scalable and highly marketable. Animals produced by means of this process are essentially indistinguishable from those that are found in the wild in all genetic, biochemical, physiological, and anatomical traits evaluated so far, although further research is ongoing.

Marketing staff are currently developing literature for the general animal husbandry market, although an initial campaign centered around "Making Animals Fuck And Have Babies" has been discarded.

Video clip

[Rob T Firefly]

Won't somebody please think of the clows?

What about the risks to our food supply?

[BradySama]

There are a lot of things that can be said on either side of this issue - and many are discussed above - but there seems to be a lack of concern regarding the risk that this genetic homogeneity poses to our food supply. If a huge proportion of our livestock are genetically identical, this has to raise the risk of a greater percentage of them falling victim to a pathogenic epidemic at some time in the future. Our (and the animals) genetic diversity is usually a great defence in the face of this type of disease outbreak. I'm sure you can imagine similar risks to our staple grain crops as well.

Last I checked cows made themselves?

[guysmilee]

Last I checked cows made themselves? There's really not much need to spend money on this kind of science for food supply is there?

Anybody else read this as

[hackronym0]

Clowned Cows?
You've just be clowned - *honk* *honk*

Will the environmentalists please kill yourselves.

[eadint]

Everytime i walk into a trader joes, or organic market i have to laught at all of the compleat and total idiots in this world, and heres why.
1) most products that are labled organic come from south american contries, these contries have no regulations on pesticides or anything else. what this means is organic food is not regulated and other than a maket driod putting a lable on a package you or anyone else has no way of knowing what was used to grow that product. organic food is a compleat lie and may contain more pesticides and harmfull products than what you buy in the supermarket. if you buy organic food you are a compeate idiot who can t tell the diference betweene marketing and truth.
2) Someone here posted that they will not eat anything that has been microwaved because of RADIATION. To this person i would like to say " for the sake of humanity do not talk to anyone else ever, and cut off your reproductive organs and microwave them" you are a danger to society and anyone who has a pulse.
3) if you are an part of the environmental party greanpeace or any other wackjob organisation, see number 2. I care about the planet and our environment, i dont like our current policies but i have no where else to go, why because all of the enviromental organisations are against nuclear energy and any other rational solution that makes sense. i am hoping that eventualy someone will come up with an environmental group that is realistic and sensible, so that people who really care about the environment can join and the greanpeace wackjobs can be maginalized and driven to extinction.
4) the greatest danger to our environment is environmentalist., they are compleatly responcible for our current situation all of the polution and waste that is going on. why because what is the first thing that politicians and the media put out when they want to make fun of and maginalize the environment. thats right environmentalists. because of this all environmetal policy is rejected and no real change can happen. greanpeace it is your fault that the world is fucked up and polluted because you have allowed others to use you as a strawman and slippery slope.

Might be obscure...

[SuiteSisterMary]

McRaineys Corporation determined that the cost to clone an organism was $150,000, thus not economically viable. They also discovered, however, that the average American eats $170,000 dollars worth of McRaineys food in a year. They started cloning people, and gave them a predisposition to eat McRainey's food....

Re:Might be obscure...

[Voidsinger]

Aaaah, good old Underground. Actually, they figured the cost of chemicals and overhead to create a clone was $80 000 (reducable by 25% when cloned in bulk), and the average person ate $120 000. Way higher profit margin.

My big worry is stuff like Estro-Gin, or Tastee Ghoul.

Tastee Ghoul. Are you a people person?

Re:Might be obscure...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Hmm, could be. I'd need to go back to check the specific numbers.

I want some Corpus Crispies!

RecklessWanderer: please read

[giafly]

I definitely have no interest in a slow painful death

Then I suggest you avoid doing things likely to cause diabetes, or make it worse, which unfortunately means being careful what you eat.

BTW I think my second link answers why they didn't say what you were examining your feet for.

We'd save more lives and resources if ...

[Anonymous Coward]

people started adopting more vegetarian diets. Eating meat is an archaic custom we have slugged through the ages because of our own shortsightedness, laziness, and general irrationality. The "oil crisis" would end tomorrow if we didn't have to devote so many resources toward raising, killing, and processing animals. The energy loss that exists between the animal eating food and turning it into meat is horrendous. Gain some willpower and stop lying to yourself that you have to eat meat. Open your eyes, people!

Totally Unneeded

[airship]

This is a solution to a problem that just doesn't exist. There's already TOO MUCH beef and milk. Both industries are heavily subsidized. (I'm from Iowa - I know.)

We faced a similar 'solution' when I worked for John Deere. Monsanto made a presentation; they were all worked up about a newly developed strain of corn that would produce 12-inch ears. We looked at each other, and finally someone raised their hand and said the obvious: "Uh, our combines won't handle 12-inch ears. This would require farmers to invest in totally new harvesting equipment (a new combine costs $250,000). Besides, there's already a corn surplus and corn subsidies to keep the price up." The Monsanto reps just looked at each other and seemed baffled, like we were speaking a foreign language. They had expected us to greet them with open arms. Idiots.

Still Vote With Dollars

[Shihar]

You can still "vote with your dollars" even without mandated labeling. Simply find suppliers that offer organic products. There are more then enough people out there happy to sell you organic stuff at a mark up. Simply check the label to make sure that "cloning" is not considered organic. All of that said, "cloned" beef is easily the last thing in the world to worry about. There are lots of farming practices that make me reach for organic alternatives, cloning isn't one of them.

Honestly, if you have the choice between a cloned cow raised organically and a non-cloned industrial cow, don't let the irrational terror of twins stop you from getting the cloned cow. Cloning just means that there is more then one cow in the world that has the same genetic code. The only danger cloning brings in it of itself is that disease could potentially wipe out an entire stock of cows where no cow has a resistance. The only people who should be uneasy about cloning should be cow suppliers, not the people that eat them.

Re:Still Vote With Dollars

[rolfwind]

You realize that you are still relying on labeling in this case ("organic"), and relying on federal guidelines to meet the definition of that label (I suppose organic has federal guidelines, like the other things like the meaning of "light", "diet", etcetera - otherwise a manufacturer is free to define it themselves which makes it essentially meaningless).

Re:Still Vote With Dollars

[Shihar]

Almost all things labeled as "organic" have a branded label on them. That is to say that they are certified organic by an organization that does such certifications. It is the same sort of system that certifies if a piece of lumber comes from the rainforest or not. The way to figure out if something is 'truly' organic or not is to look up the organization that certified it as organic. A quick web search is more then sufficient. You will find what they certify as organic and probably get any criticisms of that organizations that might be floating around in the Internet.

Perhaps even easier, you can find stores that specialize in organic foods. If it is inconvenient to look up the labels yourself, then you can look up a stores record and trust the store. So, you could look up Whole Foods and decide for yourself if you trust that what they certify in their store is organic is really organic. If you think that they are trustworthy then simply buy just from that store and spare yourself looking up every single organic label.

Is this the most convenient system in the world? No. It isn't as easy as going to your local grocer and reading FDA approved labels. That said, you are probably better off for it. FDA labeling is labeling by committee. The FDA food pyramid for example is considered absolute crap by many nutritionist. That said, if you put in an ounce of effort, you will find that it isn't that hard to find real organic products. If the simple research is takes to buy organic is too much for you, it is unlikely that you care enough to really be bothered. If a few minutes of research online is too much, just do yourself a favor, save yourself the pain of a few minutes on the Internet, and just by the shit they put out in every single grocer.

Explain this to me.

[Grendel Drago]

Wait, wait. Let me see if I have this straight.

Labeling laws are skirted by industry and made worthless. The solution, by you, is to get rid of labeling laws, instead of strengthening them or closing the loopholes.

"What do you know? These antipsychotic meds only make me a little less crazy. I guess I'd better just stop taking them at all."

knock knock. who's there? interupting cow. inte...

[ubuwalker31]

Moo (Moo)

Libertarian phase?

[Grendel Drago]

I hear a lot about Slashdot's liberal bias whenever a political story is posted, but I think what makes the place really special is how we get the "if we didn't have government, we would all fly personal helicopters to our golden palaces" libertarian types on the oddest of stories. Maybe it has something to do with the demographic. After all, I went through a libertarian phase when I was a pissed-off high schooler.

Re:Libertarian phase?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the question becomes, if you can be reasonably be classified into one of the other significant American political archetypes, are you now a socialist, a conservative, a paleoconservative, or a neoconservative?

Because your banter about "liberal bias" and so many self-described libertarians strikes me as a bit odd since all an American libertarian is, in reality, is a liberal that's confused as to his or her identity and ideological heritage.

See, here's where you seem to be confused. Liberals don't want big governments. They don't want the government to come in and constantly save people from their own laziness and ineptitude. That's what a socialist is. When you hear the "liberals" on Slashdot bickering with conservatives over something like welfare, or labeling, or health care, what you're actually listening to is a socialist and an economic liberal argue.

Here's the rundown. Don't feel bad that you're confused, thanks to about one hundred years of disinformation from powerful organizations and socialists-in-hiding, most people don't seem to understand anymore what the various political affiliations really are:

Liberal: rabidly pro-free-market. Small government to the point of extreme anti-authoritarianism. in effect, near anarchy. Government should exist solely for the purpose of preventing people from violating each others' rights when the violated person has no rational method of preventing the violation. In other words, if you just pick something up off the shelf and slog it down without knowing what's in the can, that's your problem. If the executive from the company comes and shoots you in the face, however, then you have a case of your rights being violated. Basically, they believe that people should be assumed to be rational, free-thinking individuals who are capable of acting in their own best interest, and who should be allowed to act in that interest so long as they do not violate anyone else's rights in the process. Note how they sound an awful lot like this bizarro-label "libertarian".

Note that the framers of the constitution of the United States and their ideological influences were overwhelmingly liberals.

Conservative: Pro-free-market, but believe that people should take their social cues from tradition. Utterly despised by most of our forefathers and their compatriots, amusingly enough considering how many conservatives constantly allude to them and invoke their names and sayings. Think that rationale and reason are not the best available tools for guiding social mores and taboos (e.g. "I don't care if it makes more sense, we always did it this way so we should keep doing it this way."). Also believe in the importance of small, communal units. Very internalized class and social structures, sometimes to the point of xenophobia against individuals within their larger social context (e.g. - a New Yorker in backwoods Virginia).

Paleoconservatives are the extremist version of conservatives. Conservatives generally accept some measure of change in the name of improvement, paleoconservatives believe that even if things are overall better with a change, tradition trumps improvement anyway (reference: Pat Buchanan's recent comments regarding segregation being less bad than a shared sense of national unity).

Socialist: Anti-free-market. Pro-nanny-state. Believe that a government should be a central structure for enforcing "good behavior" and/or providing services for people. May or may not believe in the rationality of individuals, but believe that if individuals are not rational then rational people should be obligated to step in and help. E.g. - socialized medicine, welfare, product labeling, public schooling, etc. Note that most every "liberal" in the U.S. these days is actually a socialist, and in any other country on earth where socialism isn't so insanely stigmatized, would be accurately called one. Have a nasty tendency of unintentionally causing facist takeovers by knocking down protections for the people against their government, the holes late

Monoculture in extremis

[HiThere]

Have you been following the fate of the banana recently? Variety after variety has been succumbing to fungal infections that can't be dealt with, even by using massively increased doses of fungicides.

We're down to only a few varieties left. Many have totally died out. Supposedly the, was it the Cavendish?, most popular banana from the 1930's and 40's is totally gone with not one surviving cell line. Because bananas reproduce asexually, so there's not genetic variation within a variety. (They all trace back to a mutation that happened fairly recently, which resulted in the seeds (that dark line in the center of the banana) not maturing. At that point the banana was fairly diverse, but the diversity was reduced with each reproductive cycle until each individual was homozygous essentially everywhere in the genome. (I don't really understand how this works, so don't ask for details.)

This has resulted in a large number of separate varieties all descendant from that one mutated individual...but these varieties are all identical twins....and they're all susceptible to the same diseases.

What do you expect of cloned mammals?

Re:Monoculture in extremis

[maxume]

I expect that plenty of people will continue to use traditional breeding methods and that any sort of monoculture related die-off would be inconvenient and expensive, but that there would still be some cattle here and there.

Re:Monoculture in extremis

[HiThere]

Then try to find ancestral wheat or corn. The problem won't happen in a year or in a decade, amd probably not within a century or two, but this is a very bad idea.

Re:Monoculture in extremis

[maxume]

I don't know much about it, but just guessing, I don't imagine that the current situation with cattle is much different than wheat and corn. I would also guess that awareness is quite a lot further along than it was 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago.

Re:Monoculture in extremis

[HiThere]

If people acted based on the long term best interest of the species, then I'd concede that you had a valid point.

They don't.

Wise people make decisions that are valid in a perspective of a century. Most people make decisions on a basis of a few years. Business leaders make decisions on a quarter to quarter basis. Politicians make decisions on "Whatever sounds good at the moment". This NOT a good recipe for wise long term decisions.

Therefore, this is a dangerous decision.

Re:Monoculture in extremis

[maxume]

You've already given up! Here we are discussing it and you decry the inability of humanity to even make the correct decision.

Re:Monoculture in extremis

[HiThere]

No. Individual people often make good decisions in various differing time frames. It's just that people en mass don't. For this we must hope that the FDA makes the right choice (to maintain the ban), whether for the correct reason or not.

For the longer term, we need a new technique. A way for individuals to combine their wisdom rather than their stupidity. The net appears to be a step along the way towards that.

But the current system is broken in the ways that I have described.

I'm sure he's got it covered.

[Grendel Drago]

Those who can't vote with their dollars aren't trying hard enough, I'll bet. Why, if they were more worthy, and not so lazy and welfare-queeny, we'd get rid of government and we'd have eight times as much wealth for each person (I've seriously seen that argument made), and we'd all sing kumbaya from deep within our heavily-fortified Fortress Mini-Americas.

Oh, wait, looking at his follow-up, I see that he's just blithely arguing that the market never, ever fails, and that state intervention is always for the worse. Should've seen that one coming.

It's called "externality".

[Grendel Drago]

So, what if the customers aren't killed, but crippled and made to die horrible, lingering, expensive deaths where they can still purchase the product until they croak? (See the tobacco industry.) Or what if the doom won't occur until after you score your golden parachute? Why would you, as a CEO, care? (See American car manufacturers and SUVs.) Or what if what you're externalizing isn't actually killing your customers, just the people around them?

You propose a poor, poor pressure to keep corporations from doing evil.

Somalia.

[Grendel Drago]

Consider the libertarian paradise of Somalia, where one can live free from the overreaching hand of government. Also, you can buy weapons as easily as you can buy bread. Fun times all around! I expect the original poster who started this whole mess will be moving there as soon as he can escape his parents' basement.

"Socialist peer review".

[Grendel Drago]

don't need socialist peer review to help them see that the free market IS best...

Wow. That just made my day. Thanks.

Low-carb diets.

[Grendel Drago]

Yes, I think I'll just stop eating pasta, and go on a high fat diet; that should definitely help me finish that 10K... You must be joking.

For what it's worth, low-carb diets do work. You just have to be willing to stay on them for the rest of your life, and you will start craving bread, rice, bagels, that sort of thing. But it is a legitimate nutritional approach.

The rest of the grandparent post is, of course, handwavey nonsense unlikely to convince anyone who didn't agree with him in the first place. But then, that's not surprising.

Re:Low-carb diets.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The effect of extremely low carb but high fat diets hasn't been evaluated yet, either, with respect to heart disease.

Re: public will reject

[An anonymous Frank]

"... public will reject Dolly-the-Lamb chops and clonal cream in their coffee"

I don't see anyone rejecting bananas yet we're all eating the same one.

Don't worry about safety of the food supply...

[Beorytis]

Worry that allowing cloned livestock into the food supply is an important step in something Slashdotters should be all too friendly with... The enforcement of intellectual property rights. You think DRM screwed up your downloaded music, just wait 'til you see what it does to cattle.

Please use quotes.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Another example [of a market exposed to legislative influence, graft and corruption] was the de-regulated power industry that California used for a while.

Please, put quotes around "de-regulated" when referring to the California scheme.

The legislation CLAIMED to be deregulation. Instead it was ADDITIONAL regulation, requiring PG&E to divest itself of generation resources AND long-term contracts, buy power on the spot market and sell it for a fixed price.

Of course this bankrupted them, caused maintainence deferrals that's still blacking out chunks of San Francisco intermittently, produced supply shortages and blackouts, and encouraged price manipulation (and cheating on the new regulations) by suppliers.

Complete cloned horse shit

[yabos]

If you expect lower prices you're fooling yourself. Back when the US was blocking Canadian beef because of the mad cow thing, prices of beef from the farmers plummeted. Did we see lower prices at the grocery stores like you'd expect? Hell no, the price remained exactly the same while the big food stores made higher profits.

intersting

[compro01]

this reminds me of a short article in Popular Science a few months back regarding a startup venture on cloned beef cattle. they had developed a method of using the tissue of recently deceased (within 48 hours) animals for cloning purposes, so basically the idea was if the meat inspector finds that a certain steer produced really, really good meat, they go and clone a bunch of identical ones, each of which would have equally good meat, assuming they are raised and fed in the same manner (reasonably easy to control within a reasonable margin of variation).

the typical longevity issues with recent cloning (the whole thing with Dolly) would not be an issue, as they're likely going to be slaughtered long before any of those problems manifest themselves.

Bananas are clones

[vuo]

The banana best known to most people is the Cavendish variety. All Cavendish bananas are clones.

I'm excited, too, but isn't there a downside?

[MasaMuneCyrus]

This does have great potential because every cow can be the perfect cow, but I thought that there were still some problems with cloning. For instance, I thought that -all- cloned animals thus far have suffered from obesity. Is that still true? Had it even been true? If it is true, wouldn't that mean that there is SOME health effect going on of which we have no idea why?

An Gorta Mór, you bloody morons.

[Medievalist]

Humans have tried relying on cloned foodstuffs in the past, you know.

In the USA we called it "The Irish Potato Famine".

A single disease organism infected a cloned crop and wiped out the Irish food supply overnight, remember that? Somewhere between 500,000 and 1,500,000 people died? Ring any bells?

I'd think a bunch of computer geeks would understand the dangers of monoculture, and how clones represent the ultimate monoculture...

Re:An Gorta Mór, you bloody morons.

[iggymanz]

those weren't cloned potatoes, there were four types of potatoes involved, though that is a lack of diversity compared to the number of types available.

How Soon Will We See

[mencomenco]

Code from cloned programmers?

Oh, wait -- that would be redundant compared to using programmers in India & China.

Many American programmers are already "well-marbled." Would they be more valuable if they were reliably tasty?

Beef eats corn. People eat beef. Corporations eat people.

Re: public will reject

[maxume]

But they aren't cuddly.

Food Supply: breeds, species and genus Oh my!

[ElitistWhiner]

Wheat was manually cross-cloned into a hybrid over 10,000 years ago from grasses that produced only 2 seeds in Mesopotamia. Today wheat, the staple of the World, contains a large head of seeds that withstands machine harvest and is much, much more potent than its forebear grasses. Hybrid grasses enabled Hunter and Gatherers to store their food supply and specialize their skills. This single event ushered in Agriculture and enabled the Modern Era of Man.

Today hybrid grasses (wheat, barley, rye, oat) are second most common ingredient in the modern diet behind sugar. The protein in wheat, gluten, is partially indigestable by man. Every person on this planet is unable to fully digest these non-natural grasses. For 1% of the population, gluten is a toxin which causes adverse immune response to foreign substance in the body.

Cloned-food is Post Modern version of Hunter Gatherer's hybrid breeding efforts. Its not that cloning is inherently un-natural, hence, un-healthy. What starts-out as begign technolgy with the best intentions improves the product over time. Fatter, flavorful (beef, here) products become concentrated sources of protein that Neanderthal Man physiology is unable to handle safely.

Physiology has not caught-up with technology in foods we eat. Medicine cannot treat Diabetics, Celiacs, etc... for allergies to foods which cause disease. Food allergy only treatment is to completely avoid food that makes them sick.

Until Modern Man arrives on this Planet, FDA and gov'ts around the World sould be duty bound to protect the heritage of the World's food supply should evolution choose not to release Human ver.3.0.

The market provides.

[COMON$]

I wish this were true. If it were, Wallmart wouldnt crush every small business in towns it comes to. Where I grew up, a walmart moved in right before I graduated. that was 10 years ago. Today there are no more grocery stores in town, no general stores, even the mechanics are drying up. Because, survey says, the majority of people dont give a crap about quality. They want to save .03 on a can of beans no matter how much preservative is stuck in it.

Now I go home to visit my parents and there is no where to get quality goods. No fresh produce, no good spices, meats are sub-par, and no good quality clothes. All for the good of the American way of laziness and bottom dollar.

Now there are rare people, you and I may like to go to the farmer's market in town, go to actual wine shops and get expert advice, and buy 'real' spices for our food. But jo american doesnt, travel minimal spend less. Meanwhile the rest of us suffer for it.

Sell it, but label it

[Rich Klein]

Why would the FDA not require vendors to label cloned foods? I just don't get that!

Of course, I want waxed produce to be labeled, too, but you can usually tell when fruit or veggies have been waxed, anyway. It's a floor wax...and a dessert topping!

Ask a chef...

[cr0sh]

Or ask an older person (ie, > 60 years of age) who remembers a meat market of old: Lean and tasty are not the two words that go together when I think of "pork". There is a reason why people are "discovering", once again, wild boar, and while it does have something to do with being "in" and "chique", it also has a lot to do with taste...

What's the advantage to cloned meat?

[the_REAL_sam]

I'll resist the "soilant green" joke, and also the joke about "And shouldn't they be cloning something more important? Something like raptor dinosaurs to cull excess Eloi from the earth's population?" and ask a real question:

What's the advantage to cloned cows? Can't they artificially inseminate cows already? And, in fact, wouldn't it be less expensive to get calves from breeding on green pastures (and reproduce at their own pace) than from cow-cloning clinics?

Article is mixing nature and nurture.

[Sir Holo]

...making perfectly marbled beef and reliably lean and tasty pork the norm...

BS. Genes do play a role in controlling the raw potential of an organism, but it is diet, excercise, etcetera that determine the ultimate quality of their tasty, tasty flesh.

And anyway, agribusiness won't focus on making products we really want. Their first priority is to make it cheap. Cheap, cheap, cheap. All other qualities are secondary. (I speak generally of the mainstream commodity food market. Those who raise quality lines from quality stock using quality methods will continue as they were.)

Re:Article is mixing nature and nurture.

[aXis100]

Considering that many farmers will be able to control the diet and living conditions of their stock, I dont see a big deal here.

Lean pork! YUK!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of us like lean pork, in Chinese cooking a fat animal is wanted for the delicious layers of fat & meat on the belly and thighs

I'll resist the whole "Frankenfood" idea...

[NeuroManson]

For one, if said beef doesn't involve adding non-species DNA, or said milk, then why is it a problem?
Secondly, I've grown up with the general idea of "tank raised beef". Sure, it was sci-fi then (around the late 70s, early 80s), but you know, if there's no nervous system in the food stock, there's no guilt.

Since there's no need for hundreds, if not thousands of acreage to raise said meat/milk, then you're basically making an improvement.

Even if there's a usage of antibiotics and steroids to maintain this supply, it's no different or worst than what we're doing now with breathing and feeling animals. Most of the usual whiners should, in fact, welcome this.

A slow thinkers' late joke

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Well, I dont mind them cloning cows as long as they let me buy the cloned cow products with money cloned by me in the basement with the scanner and the printer.

They certainly were clones.

[Medievalist]

those weren't cloned potatoes, there were four types of potatoes involved, though that is a lack of diversity compared to the number of types available.

At the time of the Great Potato Famine, the vast majority of Ireland's potatoes were propagated vegetatively by cutting out the eyes and replanting them, which produces clones. The only variation between individual plants was due to viral accumulation, which is not a good thing. Sexual reproduction of plants (which we now know supports beneficial variation) was purposely prevented by the Irish farmers.

The dominant potato of pre-famine Ireland was the infamous "lumper".