Slashdot Mirror


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."

2 of 480 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Really REALLY excited. by mpapet · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  2. Re:I'm excited. by perrin · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.