F.D.A. Says Cloned Animals Safe to Eat

Kizzume

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/business/15cnd-clone.html?em&ex=1200546000&en=fd2c8ce3ecc662cc&ei=5087%0A

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

I don't see why it would be bad. It's just a copy of the animal.

Kizzume · Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject:

I can't even begin fathom what an irrational argument against this is. Sad

I know there were a lot of people against genetically engineering foods, which I also have NO problem with. I still don't understand their arguments--it just seems like pure paranoia. I'm hoping someone might at least know what the other side is just out of possibly reading about it somewhere.

Maybe there's something that we don't know about the process? Confused

Kizzume · Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject:

I found this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22669943/

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

I think part of the issue is the common understanding of cloning. It was said best that we are essentially making a copy. Problem is that most people work around copy machines meaning they understand the fact that if you continually make a copy of a copy of a copy, the quality is exponentially diminished.

Kizzume · Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject:

Ahhh---finally, something that at least I can sort-of understand as a reason one might have...... Smile

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

I am bothered by this, personally. And the reason is very simple: animals are already objectified. They are already treated inhumanely. This just progresses the factory farm to a new level of inhumanity in my opinion.

Also, we can't afford to keep making so many freaking cows. We are destroying the environment. The gases that are emitting from cows are far more dangerous to global warming than fuel emissions. And we keep cutting down rainforests-- something we need-- in order to make room for more cows. This is bad.

Cloning increases the likelihood of even more animal overpopulation. It also increases the chances of factory farms being even more brutal in the way they kill animals. "Well, it is only a clone."

And the worst part? We are getting cloned, next.

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject:

I'm not quite sure where the more cows = less rainforests comes in, since the places where cows are going to be are in the factory farms, not rainforests.

You are correct that they'll probably be even more brutal. It's really hard to get more brutal than we are now.

I don't mind if I get cloned. I find it fascinating.

What I think would be great is if they could "grow" muscles--if we could "grow" meat.

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject:

I had no idea that the land was being used for those purposes. Yipes! Sad

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

Yea, animal farms do fuck up the environment quite a bit, but it's not just cow farms. Chicken, Pig, and Fish Farms have boned the environment too. Both the former have and continue to produce devastating amounts of pig and chicken shit, environmental pollution. Despite some regulation, the industries tend to get a way with a lot and, unlike Europe, the USA is poorly regulated when it comes to environmental and animal welfare concerns from farms.

In terms of fisheries, it's well-known that many of the natural fisheries are under significant stress from overfishing of the commons. Instead, someone came up with teh brilliant idea to "farm" the fish, as if that would be better. It's not because a lot of them grow "economically profitable fish." So instead of taking stress away from the natural fisheries, they end up expanding pressures because fishing fleets go in in search of "feeder fish" to feed the carnivourous farmed fish, whose diets are supplemented with feeder farms as well. The former feeder operation places additional stress on the native fish populations by taking away food supplies that typically they eat. It also produces a lot of waste fuel having ships truck around looking for feeder fish as well as continuing standard sea fishing.

The process of fishing also creates tones of accidental catch, which often kills large quantities of sea animals that are wasted.

Pig and Chicken farms are largely responsible for the "dead zones" in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, because someone let pig shit and other nasty things flow into them, kiling huge swaths of the ecocommunity. Now it's almost devoid of life. Almost.

Cow feeding operations are also notoriously wasteful in terms of fuel, water, and food. You get very few calouries per cow relative to the amount of energy you put into them. Much of the farmland is donated to feeding cattle and other animals; a minority of it actually going to human consumption. If you look at the corn belt, you will be dismayed to realize just how much of the land is entirely devoted to animal feed, and the land can be used for other more productive purposes, but since people want meat, we take the waste as "ok."

It takes galleons of oil to produce a single cow, as well, which makes it all the more appalling.

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject:

That was a really good post. I've learned a number of things in this thread. Smile

One thing though--I don't understand the last sentence--how does it take gallons of oil to produce a single cow, or are you talking about transporting the cow?

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:24 pm Post subject:

Yipes. Vegetarianism isn't looking quite as crazy..... not that I'm going to quit eating meat.....

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124