Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Parliament Votes To Ban Cloning of Farm Animals

Posted by Soulskill on from the good-golly-miss-dolly dept.

sciencehabit writes: The European Parliament today voted to ban the cloning of all farm animals as well as the sale of cloned livestock, their offspring, and products derived from them. The measure, which passed by a large margin, goes beyond a directive proposed by the European Commission in 2013, which would have implemented a provisional ban on the cloning of just five species: cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, and horses. The supporters of the ban cited animal welfare concerns, claiming that only a small percentage of cloned offspring survive to term, and many die shortly after birth. The ban does not cover cloning for research purposes, nor does it prevent efforts to clone endangered species.

116 comments

  1. What about pets? by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I think many folks would like to be able to clone a lost dog that was a dear pet.

    Is the govt going to tell us we can do that? WTF did they get the rights to tell us we can't have a clone of our pets?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:What about pets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cloning an animal doesn't give you the same animal, bro. If you clone yourself then self-terminate, what are you left with?

    2. Re:What about pets? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I think many folks would like to be able to clone a lost dog that was a dear pet.

      Is the govt going to tell us we can do that? WTF did they get the rights to tell us we can't have a clone of our pets?

      Current cloning technology does, not the government. Do you really want to see 9 of 10 attempts of cloning your loved pets to turn out horrible, and the last one to die within a year?

    3. Re:What about pets? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most people also have a crazy/wrong idea about what cloning is. It's not going to give you a carbon copy of your pet, all it gives you is an identical twin. I also seem to recall hearing that with some animals a twin won't even look the same due to things like color pattern being influenced by its time in the womb, but I could be completely off in left field with that. Regardless, you're just getting another pet with the same DNA makeup.

      And really, so much of the anti-cloning hysteria comes from that sort of wrong-headed thinking, that's there's something horribly unnatural or mad-science-y about cloning, when nature makes clones all the time - it just doesn't time-shift them.

    4. Re:What about pets? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most people also have a crazy/wrong idea about what cloning is. It's not going to give you a carbon copy of your pet, all it gives you is an identical twin. I also seem to recall hearing that with some animals a twin won't even look the same due to things like color pattern being influenced by its time in the womb, but I could be completely off in left field with that. Regardless, you're just getting another pet with the same DNA makeup.

      You're not off in left field. A cat may not even be the same color, technically. (The first cat cloned was a calico - it's clone was grey and white, no orange; orange is randomly activated during fetal development, and in the clone never activated, by chance.) I don't know if it'll go to that extreme in dogs, but again anything that's not a solid color tends to have color patches randomly distributed during development, so clones won't have the same pattern of colors unless the breed is single-color.

      Personality is even more changeable - again the example of the first cloned cat: She was much more friendly to people she didn't know than her clone-mother was. (Probably due to being handled a lot more as a very young kitten.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    5. Re:What about pets? by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_cloning
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CC_%28cat%29

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    6. Re:What about pets? by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      I think it has more to do with the economical aspects of using GMO and cloning technologies than anything else. They're already killing the animals for meat and some are probably not treated humanely if we're being completely honest and if we're considering Halal or Kosher meat, it's definitely not as humane as other methods.

      Once you start cloning livestock, someone will find the ideal cow or pig that grows faster and tastes better than anything else. At that point, you have to have that cow or pig in order to compete or you slowly lose out to those that have a more efficient method. Small farmers can't hope to implement their own cloning programs, so they're forced to buy from a third party, much like they do with many GMO crops. For many European countries that means some of the money is being sent overseas, unless that company is spending it back locally. With the European Union and the Euro it makes it far more likely that that money gets spent somewhere like Germany or France, and while it might slowly defuse back from there, it's probably a small net loss for the smaller countries.

      Since no one wants to enact some outright protectionist policies, which would likely just be met with protectionist policies in return, these countries can ban the use of the technology on ethical grounds or for safety reasons, which essentially accomplish the same thing by not allowing the more efficient competition into the market, but without being met reciprocated protectionist policies from other countries. In the long term, I expect that they'll allow for this kind of technology to be used, especially once they have a local industry capable of supplying the clones or GMO crops, but in the short term it likely wouldn't be good for the local agriculture market, which may already have trouble competing with the subsidized U.S. farmers, unless they're also getting some agriculture subsidies of their own.

      It's somewhat similar to the impoverished nations that received large amounts of food aid which tends to destroy local agricultural markets, leaving the populace dependent on either importing their food or receiving handouts if they have nothing of equal value for trade. While the EU wouldn't be hit quite as badly, it would probably cause some instability in the agriculture sector, which isn't likely worth the political fallout, so they come up with a clever way of enacting protectionist policies without calling it a protectionist policy.

    7. Re: What about pets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We shouldn't be breeding pets to begin with. It's a form of slavery and someday the world will wake up and realize that.

    8. Re:What about pets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think many folks would like to be able to shot a neighbor that is a horrible nuisance.

      Is the govt going to tell us we can do that? WTF did they get the rights to tell us we can't shoot a neighbor in the head?

    9. Re:What about pets? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I think many folks would like to be able to clone a lost dog that was a dear pet.
      Is the govt going to tell us we can do that? WTF did they get the rights to tell us we can't have a clone of our pets?

      This is not 'the government telling us we can't do ...' some thing randomly. There are in fact very good reasons why we should not uncritically clone animals: our techniques are still very immature, and there are too many factors we don't understand well enough. If we could safely take a few stem cells and grow a new, healthy individual from them, like we can with plants, then perhaps it wouldn't be such an issue, but we can't at the moment. I bet you would have heard about it if we could - it would also mean that we could grow new organs, for one thing.

      One problem with our current cloning techniques is incompatibility between the genomes of the donated nucleus and the mitochondria of the egg cell into which it is implanted. We now know that the respiratory chain relies on electrons tunneling from site to site inside a large protein complex consisting of proteins produced from genes in the nucleus as well as the mitochonria, and if they don't fit together well enough, the distance between sites in the chain can become too large, and energy production becomes too inefficient; in most cases, it seems, that results in free radicals leaking out and triggering apoptosis: the cell dies. And if the fetus develops to term, it is very likely to be severely ill.

      And on top of that - a clone is a best an identical twin; even identical twins are not identical. A clone of your favourite pet would easily just be a sad parody of what you knew. We all know it is hard to loose a loved pet, but death is part of life, and the trick is to learn to let go and move on.

    10. Re:What about pets? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      I think many folks would like to be able to clone a lost dog that was a dear pet. Is the govt going to tell us we can do that? WTF did they get the rights to tell us we can't have a clone of our pets?

      If it makes sense for a pet, then surely it makes sense for a child? Also who gave them the right to tell me I can't genetically modify my children, maybe I don't want them to need glasses and why not make them smarter while I'm at it?...

      The fact that many people want something doesn't mean it should automatically be permitted. Cloning certainly fits in the category of technologies that need considered thought about how and why it can be used, rather than a free for all.

    11. Re:What about pets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did this with a bull that the farmer was very close too. He said that it wasn't the same. The personality was still different.

    12. Re:What about pets? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't like to clone my dog. It would be like Pet Cemetery: looks the same but isn't the same. Horrible.

      --
      soylentnews.org
    13. Re:What about pets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you stuff your dead dog and make a mecha pet? Anyway, as long as you're not going to sell the cloned dog for human consumption I guess you're OK.

    14. Re:What about pets? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      If it makes sense for a pet, then surely it makes sense for a child? Also who gave them the right to tell me I can't genetically modify my children, maybe I don't want them to need glasses and why not make them smarter while I'm at it?...

      I don't really see a problem with that either..I mean, if you as a parent can prevent your child having physical and mental problems, why not? If you can give your child a leg up on others physically and mentally...why would you not want to and not be able to?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:What about pets? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of great pets in shelters waiting for a new home. There is really no need to clone your pet.

  2. What's the point of cloning a pet? by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What would be the purpose of a clone... if consciousness does not transfer?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly how many people do you think you could scam out of a few thousand dollars by cloning their cat or dog before they realized that? That's your purpose.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    2. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Research on humans has found that personality is somewhat heritable, so I suspect this would also be true of animals. It's already generally accepted that certain breeds express certain personality traits more so than others, so an exact replica raised in a similar environment should theoretically be similar in temperament to the previous incarnation.

      Also why not do it if for no other reason than attempting to determine how well it works or to improve techniques for carrying out cloning? If someone wants to pay to advance science, why stand in their way?

    3. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Grench · · Score: 1

      But Assassin's Creed tells us that we have genetic memory! That our entire lives' memory is encoded in our DNA and passed down through the generations! And with a fancy machine, our decendents can relive our memories, and those of our parents and grandparents too! Surely a genetic clone would have all those memories too???

      Oh wait, it's a game, and not real at all.

      This is the issue most people have with cloning - it's copying the physical form, not the memories, and not the personality. In order for "favourite dog v2.0" to be the same as "favourite dog v1.0", you would need to raise that dog in exactly the same way, responding in exactly the same way to its behaviour as you did with the original, AND it would need to learn from your behaviour and respond to it in exactly the same way as the original did. Too many variables.

      Once we can download and upload the contents of the brain -- reliably -- then this may be a possibility. But we're so far away from that, that when we do invent this tech, it'll be powered by those long-awaited commercial fusion reactors that are only 20 years away.

      --
      He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
    4. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know, that's always bothered me in science fiction, when they duplicate people. There's an assumption on the part of the character duplicating himself that the other iterations will do what he wants them to do or will otherwise see him as a leader. The most egregious example was an episode of the modern Doctor Who series where The Master duplicated himself over nearly everyone on earth, and despite them all being him they all followed orders, when he wouldn't be inclined to follow orders of anyone, arguably even himself. It was also a bit of an issue in the second and third Matrix films, but Smith's more singular purpose seemed to be better at not having the clones fight against each other, and possibly even simply be parallel processes of the same intelligence instead of truly forked, independent processes.

      The only time I've seen it done well was in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where a long-ago duplicated Riker was discovered living in an abandoned outpost, where the issues of who could and should claim what aspects of life were debated. Both Rikers were indeed individual people at that point even if they started out as one.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      These are pets. As long as the basic behavior traits are mostly the same, the owner will just project the details.

    6. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is a research exception. So doing it to see how it works (which has been done...) or to improve techniques is allowed.

      What this law really is preventing is another situation like the collapse of the banana production in the 1950's: Bananas are seedless, so are grown from cuttings - essentially clones of single plant. In the 50's, there was a disease that spread that the then-popular type of banana was very susceptible to, which almost wiped out the entire industry. The industry switched to a different variety, but it's still just a vegetative clone, ready to be hit by one disease and wiped out again. Imagine that happening to chickens or cows, wiping out their respective industries, even for a year or two. It would be chaos.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    7. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by GrooveNeedle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're right of course, but I wanted to add that a decent example of this was in a Michael Keaton comedy, of all places, called Multiplicity. The basic premise was he had too much to do, got a clone of himself to handle his job (architect or something), while he spent time with the wife and kids and still did some household chores.

      Eventually, the original wanted more leisure time and created a second clone for the household chores. Ultimately, the architect copy became more manly (grunting, drank beer, roughhoused, deeper voice) and the household cleaner became more feminine. After a while, neither clone wanted to do the grunt work and they made a clone of a clone...which turned out to be less intelligent than the others.

      Long story short, it showed how a clone (even though it had the same memories of the original up to the point of cloning) would eventually branch off and have their own experiences that shaped their needs and wants.

    8. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by sinij · · Score: 1

      Exactly! I'd never clone myself, unless terminally ill, for this exact reason. It is all but guaranteed that I'd attempt to off other myself and assume the identity. It would escalate from there...

    9. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Many dog personality traits are certainly the products of their environment. You might be able to replicate those experiences in a general sense to get more or less the same effect, but that would require years of training. And the dog would likely not have any of the less desirable, but individual traits that made him or her unique. In some cases the dog would be "better", but that might well generate a "Stepford dog".

      In any event, considering all the work that goes into generating a personality, why bother? The worst thing I could imagine would be cloning some dogs while there are perfectly good rescue dogs waiting for adoption. Or just get some new puppies. Make some new friends.

      Losing a pet permanently is a teaching experience in life that shows you how to move on and deal with death. Unless you really were somehow saving the original Rover from death via brain download or something, I don't think a cloned pet is a good idea.

    10. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Example 1:
      I have an American Eskimo. Their breed description reads "Demands attention or will get bored" but our specific dog is the lowest-maintenance dog on the planet. It's practically a cat. If something happened to her, we would not get another American Eskimo, because she would likely demand more attention than we can spare at the current time. Something in this dog separates her from her breed and its that distinction which makes her desirable to my family.

      Example 2:
      My cousins had a German Shepard/Lab mix that was an amazing dog. I've never seen another German Shepard/Lab mix that looked and behaved like she did, because it exhibited different traits from the different parents. There is so much variety when crossing two breeds, you can't get any sort of reliable puppy out of a "designer mixed breed". I understand this is an issue with Pomskies (Pomeranian/Husky) that already go for $1200 and they're a crapshoot. This would improve that "market" -- such as cloning a Pomsky that inherited the low-chance of "Likes Small Children" trait.

    11. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd never clone myself, unless terminally ill, for this exact reason. It is all but guaranteed that I'd attempt to off other myself and assume the identity.

      Stuff and nonsense. A clone of you is simply an artificially produced identical twin (with an age difference). No more, no less. It is no more you than your identical twin would be.

    12. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Danger: that's racist thinking.

    13. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      What would be the purpose of a clone... if consciousness does not transfer?

      If the pet was flash-fossilized, surprisingly the clone will inherit all of the previous pet's memories - including the ability to bark along with "I'm Walking on Sunshine".

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    14. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fairly dumb question. You would get the same physical characteristics as well as a good chance at the same temperament you liked in the original animal. Umm.. durr?

    15. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by losfromla · · Score: 1

      The Benne Gesserit were the same, right? All the females had all the memories of their antecedents? I may be remembering it very wrong as it has been a long time since I read the Dune series.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    16. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The only time I've seen it done well was in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where a long-ago duplicated Riker was discovered living in an abandoned outpost, where the issues of who could and should claim what aspects of life were debated. Both Rikers were indeed individual people at that point even if they started out as one.

      Farscape did a good (multi-episode) job of it too. I think there was still at least one consequence never quite cleared up at the end of the series from it, too.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    17. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Kazman20 · · Score: 1

      actually it would be like the current fungal infection scare with bananas the Dwarf Cavendish(sp) which are seedless then pre-1950 bananas where the Gros Michel (sp) which had seeds, are still around rare. on a side note the banana genome is just strange we have done some truly weird things to these plants with just breeding.

    18. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certain behavioral traits are genetic, that's why. I had a dog about 15 years ago that I would love to have a clone of. The was the perfect size, strength and temperament for me. Having a temporally separated twin of her would remove a lot of uncertainty and would be ideal.

    19. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most egregious example was an episode of the modern Doctor Who series where The Master duplicated himself over nearly everyone on earth, and despite them all being him they all followed orders

      Because they weren't copies of him they were him. Relevant quote from the episode:

      *ring ring*
      The Master - "That's a mobile."
      Wilfred - "Yeah it's mine. Let me turn it off."
      The Master - "No no no. I don't think you understand. Everybody on this planet is me. And I'm not phoning you so who the hell is that?"

      He didn't need to answer it to know who was calling, because he knows what every version of him is doing because he is every version of him. Yes, just before that, he was talking with himself on several TVs, but I think that was just for the benefit of his prisoners.

    20. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      All white cockatoos look exactly the same, but even a bird brain has enough space for a unique personality that their owner can identify. An identical dog that behaves like a dog won't have the same personality and the (dog loving) owner will pick that up in a heartbeat.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The sci-fi Sten series has a cool take on creating clones and the indoctrination process used on the clone to shape it's behavior.

    22. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the premise is that you make a clone that no one knows about to do all your dirty work/help take over the world or whatever.
      Society doesn't know about the clone, and the clone has no advantage to keep the original around to tell him what to do.
      With twins there isn't one twin who has to do all the work while they other gets to claim responsibility for the work.
      This is why I also think that if I clones myself the clone would try to get rid of me.
      If not by killing, then by some other means.

    23. Re: What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would clone my cat while she is still alive and have her raise her clone as if it was her kitten. I would rather have a natural kitten but I had her neutered for which I am dearly sorry. I am sure all that I need to transfer will. I knew the mother and the father of my cat and I notice an abundance of common traits, and definitely learned behavior. Or just clone new reproductive system for my cat. That is not shenanigans.

    24. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other then looks, hair color, eye color which can not change. Everything else is determined after birth. Likes, dislikes, gay, strait, afraid of spiders, shy,.... etc.

      Your experiences make you who you are. A clone would not grow up to look the same as the original.

    25. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's a matter of knowing what all of the clones knew so much as knowing himself and knowing that he would never have made that call.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    26. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I had forgotten about the various iterations of Crichton. Between the cave-man version and the brainiac version, then later the parallel version created on the dying leviathan it was interesting to see how they handled Aeryn Sun's perception of the situation and how the now-twins dealt with it both while in good health together and while the one was dying.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    27. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by TWX · · Score: 1

      The only way it would work even close to properly would be like in The Specials or in Watchmen, where there's only one consciousness and individual bodies act like appendages to that consciousness. It would also require a fairly vast consciousness to be able to handle all of that control at the same time without dropouts, and then there's the question of distance.

      I suppose it might work if a clone can spawn and then re-merge, such that the original organism maintains all of the memories and learning experiences while split, but that would assume that the clone would be inclined to reintegrate.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    28. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a true clone of body and mind, but not shared consciousness, were to be done, it would be a relief I imagine for some. Whereas the original can continue building his or her life as it was up to that point, whereas the clone could set off and explore the world around him or her in a new way... without all the baggage, the responsibilities, that the original is taking on as was before.

    29. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an assumption on the part of the character duplicating himself that the other iterations will do what he wants them to do or will otherwise see him as a leader.

      Most biological parents have the same assumption about their offspring. The idea that you own what you "make" is a tenacious superstition.

    30. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're correct. Those arrogant sisters that plagued me so could only see their maternal lineage thru Other Memory.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    31. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd never clone myself...It is all but guaranteed that I'd attempt to off other myself and assume the identity. It would escalate from there

      I think this says more about you than cloning generally or even your clones specifically.

      - T

    32. Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? by Bugamn · · Score: 1

      I'd just like to point that the Agent Smith example might not really relate to cloning, since he was the representation of a program on a very complex interface (the Matrix). We can't say for sure whether his clones were copies of the same program, or one program expanding - why wouldn't a program be able to control two entities at the same time?

  3. pet cemetary by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    be careful what you wish for

    but seriously anything we clone now is not a replica in the way copying a computer file is. it may have the same physical looks, it may be dna identical, however it will not, it cannot be an exact replacement for a pet

    I can see bad things if people do this thinking they will get their lovable pet back and find it to be a totally different animal

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:pet cemetary by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      but seriously anything we clone now is not a replica in the way copying a computer file is. it may have the same physical looks, it may be dna identical, however it will not, it cannot be an exact replacement for a pet

      I can see bad things if people do this thinking they will get their lovable pet back and find it to be a totally different animal

      Well, if you raised the animal the same as you did the first one, why would it not develop a personality at least similar to the original?

      I know we don't have the Dune Ghola thing going...but it would at least be close to it, having the same eyes to look into, etc.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:pet cemetary by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, if you raised the animal the same as you did the first one, why would it not develop a personality at least similar to the original?

      LOL ... only someone who isn't a parent, has never encountered children, was raised in a lab, AND was a single child could ask that question.

      Animals don't develop personalities like that.

      Hell, even human twins can have wildly different personalities. Animals born years apart are simply not going to have the same personalities.

      It really doesn't work like that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:pet cemetary by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Twins are still genetically different, with inherited temperaments for each that are distinct. I'm pretty sure an exact clone of a pet, raised the same way, would have similar temperament and behavior.

      I'm not even sure "raising" is much of an issue. Cats don't really seem to have much long-term memory, just instincts... even very young kittens show personality which will develop over a lifetime.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:pet cemetary by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are very wrong. The first cloned cat wasn't even the same official color as their genetic parent - and the researchers considered their personality differences even more pronounced, largely due to how they were raised.

      How cats are raised and treated makes a very big difference in their behavior. Even such things as where they were in the womb makes a big difference.

      And an identical twin isn't genetically different - that's why you clarify identical vs. fraternal twin. They are very different - both in humans and in animals - but genetically if they aren't the same they aren't an identical twin.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    5. Re:pet cemetary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have grown older, food has changed, environment has changed, people have changed. Your clone will not have the same education as the original. You original might have had a trauma from an event that scared him or her, but that didn't happen to your clone making him more aggressive in some situation instead of shy like the original for example. A clone is nothing special. You are a clone of your mum and dad. You know that it is not okay to make clones in a mother/sun, father/daughter, brother/sister relations because inbreeding problems. Well a clone is kind of the same thing but with even less diversity in genetic material: it's the result of person mixed with him or herself.

      Genetic manipulation, where a scientist can prevent a child to get some genetic inherited disease is something different. This might make 'healthier' clones of the genetic material of two or even more people. But it is seen as unethical by many people.

    6. Re:pet cemetary by swb · · Score: 1

      Why believe cats would represent dogs in terms of personality?

      Dogs are social pack animals and tend to assimilate into the pack which they belong, basically learning pack behaviors and habits.

      So if you raised a clone from a puppy in the same household using the same training you used to raise the original dog, it seems like it would be highly likely that it would have dogs which appeared to have similar personalities.

      It may be that the cloned dog actually has a different personality but from the owner's perspective the malleability of the dog due to its social nature may make it seem like it has the same personality of the old dog.

      Regardless, it would be fascinating to know what aspects of the dog's personality aren't influenced by training and pack behavior OR genetics.

    7. Re:pet cemetary by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      I used cats as an example because the comment I was replying to and the article I linked to both use cats as a primary example. However, it's only a primary example, and the article does go into a fair amount of detail on why many of the some effects are found in dogs. Please read it to have your questions answered.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    8. Re:pet cemetary by Prune · · Score: 1

      You mention that dogs are social as a contrast to cats; however, that distinction is exaggerated. Domestic cats (as in the species, whether actually in human residences or feral) are solitary hunters, but they're frequently social in their leisure time -- something that is not merely an artifact of them being in a domestic environment, as every feral cat colony demonstrates. This aspect of their behavior is further extended into being even more social because humans are something akin to pseudo-mothers to the cat (various behaviors, such as the continuation of meowing and kneading beyond kittenhood, are obvious clues).

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    9. Re: pet cemetary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cats have long term memories. I know it is anecdotal but my cat has more than a 6 year memory span. She is just too independent to show it most of the time, but I definitely find long memory indications

  4. Disappointing news by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    I was really looking forward to being able to chow down on some bacon made from square pigs in the near future.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Disappointing news by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jokes aside, I seriously suspect that as the real driving force behind this ban.

      Within a decade, the bulk of the meat industry could become an effectively animal-free industry generating product in vats rather than on pastures. You know that the livestock/husbandry industry has to see that as nothing short of an existential threat.

      I'd love to see where the dollars came from to promote this ban. I'd put good odds that it comes from exactly the industries it supposedly regulates.

    2. Re:Disappointing news by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      We can already make industrial quantities of wine and other beverages, and yet there are still people who will pay a stupid amount of money for wines and spirits that have been "aged" in a certain way or combined with exotic ingredients like "glacier water from the Himalayas".

      So, it is easy to see how farmers could stay in business with actual cows, albeit not in direct competition with industrial farms because industrial farming will be dead and replaced by industrial vat protein production.

      The traditional farmers just play up "better flavor", the hint of elitism, and of course, the idea that somehow doing it the non-vat way is more "friendly" to the environment, "organic", and "green". It will be an interesting and probably sad day for me when a real filet goes from $40 in a restaurant to $200, but that's probably how farmers will remain in business.

    3. Re:Disappointing news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a threat, it's a cost cutting opportunity.

    4. Re:Disappointing news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some farmers != most farmers. The vast majority of people look a a 10€/kg price difference.

    5. Re:Disappointing news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Meatlent, a la Soylent?

    6. Re:Disappointing news by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      This is exactly how traditional Japanese beef farmers make a living from tiny herds, emphasize "quality", emphasize "tradition", emphasise "scarcity", emphasise "natural", charge 10X as much.

      Humans have always behaved this way, during stone age britain a prehistoric miner could make a greenstone axe head in an hour or two. The axe head was then taken back to the village and polished by others for up to 1000hrs, greenstone was prefered because it is hard dense rock that doesn't shatter like quartz, and it looks good when polished. The polishing was purely ornamental, a stone axe polished for 1000hrs does not perform any better than the non-polished one that took 2hrs to shape. Polished axes were not even used as axes, they were a kind of primitive currency, unlike gold trinkets of more modern cultures, the value was not the scarcity of the shinny rock, but the effort that went into making it shinny.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Disappointing news by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Polished axes were not even used as axes, ... the value was ... the effort that went into making it shinny.

      This is, of course, conjecture.

    8. Re:Disappointing news by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      This is Europe, they don't use dollars, dumbass. Another stupid AmeriKUNT butting in to a subject that she knows nothing about. Please stop contributing, your ignorance hurts to behold.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:Disappointing news by N1AK · · Score: 1

      This is, of course, conjecture.

      Really!? And there I was thinking tnk1 must have actually spoken to prehistoric man or read prehistoric man's lengthy manuscripts on the economic value of shiny axes.

    10. Re:Disappointing news by pla · · Score: 1

      This is Europe, they don't use dollars, dumbass

      Uh-huh. Take Uncle Sam's dick out of your mouth and look around. Ever wonder where all those dollars the megacorps funnel through Ireland end up? Sure, they may at some point exchange them for your monopoly-money, but only to preserve the illusion.

      You have the best governments money - Real money, good ol' American greenbacks - Can buy!


      Another stupid AmeriKUNT butting in to a subject that she knows nothing about.

      Spoken like the well behaved eurotrash we pay for - Bitterly defiant to the end, all while bending over and spreading those cheeks nice and wide for your real masters. So adorable! Pout for me, little lap dog, pout! Tell me how much you hate me while I save you from... Let's see, Russia, this time? Hard to keep track.

  5. So they banned something that doesn't exist? by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the summary: "only a small percentage of cloned offspring survive to term" and they didn't ban it for research.
    Noone is going to clone for production until they can get a large percentage of clones to survive and there is some
    cost advantage. They didn't ban researching it so basically this sounds like a feel good piece of legislation that does
    very little except complicate things.

    1. Re:So they banned something that doesn't exist? by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Noone is going to clone for production

      Think more along the lines of cloning a few a prized bulls, which can be worth over a million dollars each. More clones means more semen to sell, which can be worth thousands of dollars per shot.

    2. Re:So they banned something that doesn't exist? by SumDog · · Score: 1

      It's preventative to keep the Monsanto/BASF/Dupont seed thing from happening. Very few companies control all the seed stock in the world. This is to make sure that doesn't happen with animals.

    3. Re:So they banned something that doesn't exist? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it would seem to be quite the opposite. This ensures that, once you buy a Monsanto bull, you won't be allowed to clone it.

    4. Re:So they banned something that doesn't exist? by jockm · · Score: 1

      You know how you prevent that? By writing laws to explicitly prevent that. Laws that say that companies can't patent full organisms, or prevent farmers from breeding cloned animals, etc. This does nothing to really get to the issue.

      --

      What do you know I wrote a novel
    5. Re: So they banned something that doesn't exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then let's hope for an import ban as well.

    6. Re:So they banned something that doesn't exist? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's a very clever and forward thinking bit of legislation that will head off predictable problems down the line.

      Eventually someone will figure out how to clone animals reliably and cost effectively. Commercial animal farmers will want to use the technology to reproduce the best milk giving and meat giving specimens. The problem is that if you have a large population of genetically identical animals they are vulnerable to disease. Genetic diversity is what protects populations from minor genetic defects becoming serious, and from diseases that affect individuals with particular genes wiping out the entire group.

      It's happened before with bananas. There is a constant worry that it could happen with other fruits, such as mandarins in Japan (every tree in the entire country is a clone, made from a cutting of a single original plant). The EU is ensuring that it doesn't happen with livestock, at least until the research has been done to ensure there is minimal risk.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:So they banned something that doesn't exist? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Not even close. If an equivalent of Monsanta existed for cattle then they'd only sell Bulls if they could also restrict cloning, and if they couldn't then they wouldn't sell bulls they'd simply sell the semen instead.

    8. Re:So they banned something that doesn't exist? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The EU is doing nothing of the sort. This is frankenfood scare tactics. What they are actually doing is preventing better, cheaper products from reaching consumers.

      Last time I checked, shelves were still crammed with bananas.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. What about people? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Well. TFS and TFA don't mention the cloning of people, only of farm animals. So my Soylent Green factory is safe for now.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  7. Ludism it's not just for industry anymore by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

    It's incredibly ironic that the continent that gave us Malthus, chooses to ignore everything about how his prophecies were defeated.

    World population is set to hit between 9 and 11 billion. Just how do they plan on eating if they are unwilling to improve yield.

    1. Re:Ludism it's not just for industry anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of the Potato Famine? Where the lack of genetic diversity in a strategic crop had catastrophic effects the ripples of which are still being felt in the UK and beyond? Or how about whole strains of grape dying out causing a panic in France, changing the nature of French wine forever.

      Imagine famine on an industrial scale because Monsanto Brand Cows are all equally susceptible to some new disease.

      No thanks

    2. Re:Ludism it's not just for industry anymore by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      If you want to increase yield that much, there's a very simple way: Remove the animals. The amount of land required to grow feed for a farm animal could also be used to grow a lot more food than the animal produces in meat.

      Humans need some meat to be healthy. But they don't actually need very much. The developed-world diet is very high in meat simply because it's very tasty.

    3. Re:Ludism it's not just for industry anymore by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of the Potato Famine? Where the lack of genetic diversity in a strategic crop had catastrophic effects the ripples of which are still being felt in the UK and beyond? Or how about whole strains of grape dying out causing a panic in France, changing the nature of French wine forever.

      Imagine famine on an industrial scale because Monsanto Brand Cows are all equally susceptible to some new disease.

      No thanks

      You mean the way they have been for the past 70 years ?

    4. Re:Ludism it's not just for industry anymore by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Informative

      Humans need some meat to be healthy.

      No, humans do not, in fact, require some meat to be healthy.

      Sorry, but please don't just make up facts on the spot.

      Someone will call bullshit on you.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Ludism it's not just for industry anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you saying they need more than just some, or none? Or are you just being obtuse on purpose.

    6. Re:Ludism it's not just for industry anymore by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Ok, if you want to be pedantic, humans require some animal product to be healthy. Eggs and dairy suffice. Vegans know the importance of paying attention to diet to avoid various deficiencies, and may need supplements. Vitamin B12 is an important one.

    7. Re:Ludism it's not just for industry anymore by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      No, humans don't need meat to remain healthy. What we need is animal products, short of some genetically engineered yeasts used to make some supplements.

      An egg or glass of milk(for those who are lactose tolerant) is perfectly sufficient.

      On the other hand, a balanced diet of 'all' plant products is fairly hard. If you don't turn your nose up at organ meats, one based off of meat is easy.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  8. the last paragraph is under-emphasized by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

    Representatives from parliament will now negotiate with the European Council, made up of representatives from member states, on a final version of the regulation.

    This makes it sound like a done deal, but it's closer to a situation where one house of the U.S. Congress has passed a law, and the other hasn't. It might pass, or might not, depending on what the other one thinks about it.

    The way European politics works, moves like this require the agreement of both the European Parliament and the European Council. The European Parliament is directly elected, with representation roughly proportional to population, and its votes are a normal majority vote, like in most legislatures. The European Council is a body representing the governments of each country directly, and uses "qualified majority voting", which is a majority vote of countries (one vote per country) but with supermajority requirements on how many people those countries represent. Specifically, to pass the European Council, a proposal needs all three of: 1) a majority of countries in favor, 2) countries representing at least 74% of "voting weights" in favor (roughly proportional to population but with small countries over-weighted), and 3) countries representing at least 62% of the EU population in favor (a straight population weighting). In practice what this means is that at least 15/28 of the EU members have to support it, and the 15 in the majority have to include most of the large countries.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  9. EU parliament vote to ban clothing of farm animals by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, I think I need more coffee...

  10. Where is MOOOO cows when you need him? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where is MOOOO cows when you need him?

    1. Re:Where is MOOOO cows when you need him? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Apparently in Europe, since he can no longer clone new posts to put in this thread.

  11. Asinine reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reasons they cite would have to be solved anyway before it. Is even seriously considered for industrial usage. Farm animals are expensive and cloning is very expensive.

  12. Like anyone wants a European clone anyway by NotDrWho · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fucking cow would probably want a 4-day work week and a full month of vacation leave.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Like anyone wants a European clone anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      And it would STILL be 50% more productive than an American one ...

    2. Re:Like anyone wants a European clone anyway by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Why aren't other, non-human, animals entitled to live a good life?

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re:Like anyone wants a European clone anyway by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      And it would STILL be 50% more productive than an American one ...

      Because they send all the unproductive cows to the slaughterhouse.

    4. Re:Like anyone wants a European clone anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy to have only productive livestock working when the rest are happy living a life on benefits.

    5. Re:Like anyone wants a European clone anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking cow would probably want a 4-day work week and a full month of vacation leave.

      Heck, if I get to fuck four days a week, I'd be fine not taking any vacation.

  13. Sounds sensible to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm very pro-GMO and vaccinations, but we have enough problems with crop monocultures. We don't need to take it a step further to full on cloning.

  14. EU wake up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, they are good at caring about meaningless stuff like this. Or banana curve regulations or lightbulbs, but solving real problems like the refugee crisis, no.
    They are completely utterly useless.

    1. Re:EU wake up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US diplomacy - Tell the UN to go fuck themselves, drop a trillion dollars of TNT on the middle east, complain the UN/EU are not cleaning up the mess fast enough.

  15. Idea by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    nor does it prevent efforts to clone endangered species

    *Sits pondering*

    Hmm.

    *Grabs truck full of poison and map of farmlands for the UK*

    Don't worry, you'll be able to clone cows shortly! In fact you may have to.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  16. A good idea. Think genetic diversity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For fuck sake this isn't about some Luddite scaremongering.

    If all of your livestock share the same genetic makeup they will all share the same strengths.. And weaknesses. A disease could wipe out a country's entire cattle/pig/chicken/whatever population in a week.

    Industrial ranching already creates the perfect storm of disease selection pressure and communicability. We pen those four legged meatbags in to the tightest, smallest possible space, stress them out, let them wallow in their own filth, feed them garbage (including the chopped up entrails of their brothers), and hope that throwing antibiotics at them keeps them alive long enough to meet slaughter maturity/weight.

    Remove what little genetic diversity that already exists by cloning? Fuck me. It's a wonder we're not all vegetarians by now.

    Not by choice, but by necessity.

    1. Re:A good idea. Think genetic diversity. by Greystripe · · Score: 1

      I should point out that as long as there is an us, there is a choice.

  17. Real reason? by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    So what's the real reason then, I assume just general unease with the concept? Some sort of slippery slope argument?

    Because "claiming that only a small percentage of cloned offspring survive to term, and many die shortly after birth." sounds like exactly the sort of thing that would make the whole thing impractical in the first place, making the ban redundant.
    And I don't suppose they will just lift the ban once research has solved these problems.

  18. So "research" purposes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in the future we'll probably see new meat for sale just like another south east asian country's
    research purposes for whales.

  19. Paranoia by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Sounds like somebody's played Paranoia - a Game where you're given a number of clones of your character. And there have been numerous games where all clones have died BEFORE leaving the starting room...

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  20. What happens when identical twins are born? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    Would the family have to emigrate?

    Now consider that IVF fertility technology increases the number of multiple births. Would this become illegal under the new rules?

    1. Re:What happens when identical twins are born? by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      Would the family have to emigrate?

      Now consider that IVF fertility technology increases the number of multiple births. Would this become illegal under the new rules?

      Only if you are raising the twins for meat...

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  21. What are they trying to solve here? by subanark · · Score: 2

    If it is true and there is a low expectation of survival, then it isn't very economical to clone for non-research purposes. Is this really a wide spread problem?

    As much as having genetic diversity help in disease resistance, we already heavily do cloning on plants. Pick any species of apple in the super market and you will find that all the apples there are clones of each other even if they were grew in different places.

    1. Re:What are they trying to solve here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the GM plants and how that business model functions. They create a specimen, that's somewhat better than the original. Let's say a chicken that lays eggs 10% faster. Now, they add another tweak that makes the chickens sterile impossible to breed (yet still lay eggs), leaving cloning the only way to make more of them.
      10% ... is huge.
      With that incentive, mass cloning won't be far behind.

      Chickens are a bad example, you know what would work? Milk cows. Create cows that give 20-30% more milk than the best we have today. We have a lot of milk, but in other parts of the world, it's very hard to get, not as a luxury, but as a basic requirement for children ... I see China jumping all over this.

  22. Re:Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should they also outlaw dragons and manticores? You know, as long as you're on this kick about banning imaginary creatures?