Slashdot Mirror
Bill Would Require Labels on Cloned Food
ComeBack writes "Steaks, pork chops, milk and other products from cloned livestock would have to be clearly labeled on grocers' shelves under a bill pending in the California Legislature.
If passed, the requirement could be more stringent than federal rules. The Food and Drug Administration is poised to give final approval to meat and milk from cloned animals without any special labeling, though a bill introduced in Congress would require it."
Mini-Me: Are you a clone of an angel?
Foxxy Cleopatra: Ohhh how sweet. No, my mini-man, I'm not.
Mini-Me: Are you sure you don't have a little clone in you?
Foxxy Cleopatra: Yes I'm sure.
Mini-Me: Would you like to?
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
The point is to allow consumers to make their own decisions on what goes into their bodies.
Just recently, the FDA has quietly changed the labeling requirements on using irradiation to package food with. Now, It is called pasteurization. Yup, just like Milk's process (which simply flash heats and cools the milk).
Do not get me wrong. I have no qualm about eating irradiated food. But I do believe that I should get to know what I am eating. As it is, it bother me that the markets are required to show that a fish comes from china (as it should), but a dog food with imported products such as Wheat Glutin can be labeled as made in America/Canada.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
All the following is IMHO.
I think labels are a good thing; consumers can educate themselves if they want to and they have all the relevant info available.
I think having food labeled whether it's genetically modified is also helpful.
I'm always looking for food that has been obtained using fair trade practices.
I also look for food that has been obtained using sustainable and eco-friendly practices.
My only choices now are to go to the local organic/natural food store and internet stores, not only for food but for environmentally friendly household products (and others).
Clones AREN'T exact copies. At least with our current technology. Clones tend to die a lot quicker than the real things and develop more diseases.
And while we're at it, let's require that all identical twins, triplets, etc. be required to wear prominent labels stating "WARNING: THIS ENTITY IS A CLONE" in order to make sure that we don't unknowingly associate with one...
Untill they figure out that we're not only killing the animals, we're killing them over & over again.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
My thoughts are that consumers SHOULD be aware of what they are eating, and they should be able to choose what to eat themselves. It may be that while not worried about the health impact of cloned meat, a consumer may have ethical concerns about scientists tinkering to produce cloned animals.
What I want to know though, is what happens to the offspring of cloned animals? Is their meat also labelled? If the offspring were the result of a pairing of two cloned animals, then presumably they also have cloned genes floating through their bodies. If the parents are unhealthy, then presumably the offspring are too.
What about the pairing of a cloned animal with an uncloned one? What do you do about their offspring?
If an animals is just 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/256th cloned, does it still get a warning?
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
If enough* people are concerned about it, then it makes sense to label accordingly. If I weren't a vegetarian, then I'd have no problem paying less for cloned meat, as I think it's highly unlikely that cloning could result in any danger to the consumer. If you feel differently, then you should be allowed to opt out - which is what labeling allows.
* enough should be a pretty low bar as labeling isn't that expensive. Maybe 1% = "enough", but I'm just making up numbers here.Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I think you are a bit confused as to the definition of cloning.
No, precisely his point is that most people (including you) are very confused as to what cloning really means. It just turns out that cloning vegetables is so much easier than cloning animals, that we have been doing it for -literally- centuries.
They've been smoking cloned dope for well over 20 years, without much protest or concern. Essentially all, or nearly all, marijuana is grown from cloned stock. You'd think that would assuage their fears somewhat.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
What is the point of the label without any information regarding the risks?
1. So you can falsely imply risks and sell your competing product as clone-free.
2. So you can hire more government employees to police the label requirement. They (or their union) will contribute to your campaign.
3. For the revenue from the fines on "improperly" labeled food.
4. You run a law firm and can sue companies for "harm" from cloned food. They settle out of court.
5. Who better to head the food labeling bureau than the guy who wrote the bill?
So the short answer is profit.
This is the reason behind most regulation or other government action.
'For all we know, healthy intact telomeres (which were present in the parent organism but not present in cloned copies) are an important part of a healthy balanced diet'
Possible but not probable. There are millions on things you can purchase and consume on the market that haven't undergone extensive testing. There is no reason to single out cloned meat for testing except that the idea freaks you out. That's like saying escargot needs to undergo clinical testing for safety because something as gross as snails could be dangerous. Don't try pulling the natural vs unnatural card either. Something is not more likely to be safe simply because its natural, nature has produced more things that are harmful to man than man has.
This is one of those issues that nobody cares about unless you shove it under their nose. Mandating something like this means more additional expense for the producer than just print on a label. It means they have to have seperate facilities and handle the two seperately. You can no longer send them to a single slaughter house to be butchered and mixed together. Grocery stores would also have to keep and handle the meats seperately. Instead of taking 50 of cut A and grinding it up then splitting it into 1.2lb (they are always intentionally over) packages they will have to handle and process two batches. Thousands of Grocers and processors across the country are suddenly open to liability if they make a mistake in the handling. These expenses will be passed on to EVERYONE whether they care about cloned meat or not.
Like most issues, this is something best left out of the law books. If people are really concerned then they will voice their complaints loudly enough that some vendors will voluntarily tag their meats 'all natural' and pass the premiums on to the consumers who care about the distinction.
I do agree that many will be concerned and that this will occur but I disagree that we should pass laws forcing people to behave the way we'd like each time there is a problem. The best solution in almost every case is to get rid of the existing laws, not to add new ones.
The folks pushing this don't want the labels so that they can avoid cloned meat. Anyone who really cares about it can buy from sources that target them (fx. the Trader Joe's chain). What they are interested in is making the average non-caring consumer think that there's something wrong with cloned meat, since there's what appears to be a warning label on it, and thus deter producers from using cloning.
That the FDA is set to allow sale of cloned meat without special labelling means that they've determined that it's not a distinction pertinent to anyone's health. That makes it the secular equivalent of a religious dietary restriction. The costs associated with making sure that the meat in a package isn't cloned should fall on those who care about it, not those who don't. If enough people do want badly enough to avoid cloned meat, specialty stores and sections within stores will cater to that. But it's not a health concern, so it shouldn't be depicted as such on the label. There are "contains nuts" labels because people can have serious allergic reactions to them. But there aren't big red "Warning! Not Kosher!" and "Not Halal!" labels on ham, nor "Contains Beef!" or "Contains Caffeine!" stickers on sausages and energy drinks despite devout Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Mormons not wanting to consume those things. Orthodox Jews pay a premium for kosher products, since they're the ones to whom it matters. So do people who want organic produce or "fair trade" coffee. And so should people wanting to avoid cloned meat, for the same reason: they're the ones wanting something different from the norm for other than objective health reasons.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."