digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

U.S. gives blessing to food from cloned animals

reuters.com — The U.S. government ruled on Tuesday that food from cloned animals and their offspring is as safe as other food, opening the door to bringing meat and milk from clone offspring into the food supply. ''Extensive...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Tinu, on 01/17/2008, -34/+17Ew. And I really want the clone-food labeled as such. Ew.
    • billybibbit, on 01/17/2008, -4/+23you will never see cloned foods on the shelves unless cloning a cow somehow becomes cheaper than artificial insemination.
      honestly, why the hell would anyone spend money to clone an animal just to slaughter it?
      • TheSabre, on 01/17/2008, -2/+10That's exactly what the WaPo said this morning. It costs over $10,000 to clone a cow. So, any beef you get would come from an offspring of a cloned cow which is absolutely the same meat as an offspring of a non-cloned cow. I'd buy it.
    • radicaldementia, on 01/17/2008, -5/+33I don't understand, what's so "ew" about cloned food? It's not like they're spraying chemicals all over animals, and cloned cows are just as healthy as normal cows. The whole idea is if you have a normal cow and a cloned cow, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. Maybe the technology isn't up to the point where you get a healthy animal every time, but if the animal is healthy, then I see no problem with using it to produce food.

      Food processing is an essential part of the food industry. Would you want to drink un-pasteurized milk or buy whole chickens and do the dirty work yourself? Even many "all-natural" foods like fruits and vegetables are the result of many years of genetic cultivation. Cloning is just the next step in healthier and more economically viable food. Obviously cloned food should be held to the same health standards as normal food, and introduction to the public should be gradual. But unless someone can, right now, direct me to a scientific study that positively concludes that cloned food is dangerously unhealthy, I'm going to just say get over the "omg cloned food is gross" predisposition and eat your damn cloned steak.
      • scotticus, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5I don't get the point of cloning though... all you have to do is jerk off a bull then shoot the semen into a girl cow.

        Oh.
        • Brel32, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Well, if you have a really good bull with the best tasting meat and such, you could clone it to get the same thing over and over.
      • seks03, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2The whole point is that over the years the meat/animal quality may drop off due to inbreeding , diseases , etc. being able to clone a healthy animal will allow us to continue to get "good quality" meat.

        this will help the food industry if evolution goes south and the cows start producing flawed offspring. Thats how I understand it.... and no we wont be eating cloned anilmals we will be eating their babies.... cloned animals will be toooo expensive to butcher
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/17/2008, -17/+6Go to itunes to get Alex Jones' massively popular podcast to understand better what's going on in these f*cked up times.

      • hoovcluck, on 01/17/2008, -3/+11i hear you man its all a conspiracy, I still haven't figured out the feds cloned WTC 7, and switched the clone that was full of explosives with the original just so they could use it as an example to exterminate the masses here on planet earth. once we can locate the evil scientists and get some proof how the NY port of authority moved a skyscraper under the cover of darkness then we can finally blow the lid off of this whole conspiracy!
        • Lukesed, on 01/17/2008, -1/+7The reptiods will never see it coming.
          • hoovcluck, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1how could they? don't they occupy our military's abandoned underground bases?
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1WEAAAAK! lol. but seriously. if you could refute wtc 7, i'd personally vouch for you to get the nobel prize. Because it's a doozey.

          ALEX JONES, FTW!

          p.s. wtf is a "reptiod"? We don't believe in conspiracy theories, we offer massive documentation and full evidence. making claims like clinton sold drugs in mena could get you arrested, yet alex is not, meaning there is sufficient evidence proving he did.
          • Spuy767, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Reptiod = Lizard Alliance?
          • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1**Correction: Reptiod [sic] = *Shapeshifting Lizard Alliance
      • TubaTechno, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1Alex Jones is a disgrace to Austin. If you really listen to him, everything he says is absolute rubbish.
    • AmICoolNow, on 01/17/2008, -1/+9Really, what's the difference between cloning an animal and breeding it to die?
      • Tilon, on 01/17/2008, -10/+3One's natural, one's playing with the fabric that makes life on this planet?
        • billybibbit, on 01/17/2008, -3/+6nope, neither are natural
          • Tilon, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1I'm not a Christian. You fail, dude. I follow no organized religion.

            But thanks for playing. Just because I believe humans don't know enough about their own ass from a hole in the ground yet to be playing with DNA cloning and reproduction for human consumption, when we're ACTUALLY debating whether Guiliani or Huckabee should be our next president.

            You think humans are smart enough to control this ***** properly? I sure don't.
      • katrayun, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3A whole lot of money.
      • cheesehead, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2One involves selective breeding while the cloning involves bypassing the natural safeguards involved in selective breeding and playing God at a molecular level with what's referred to as a a genetic shot gun. I can't believe you city boys are so ignorant about what you eat. It's disappointing to see the pro cloning lobby so well represented amongst the rurally challenged on digg.
        • AmICoolNow, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1One is forcing two animals to combine DNA and create another animal, the other is combining DNA to create a consistently better (for meat) animal. At the end of the day, you're creating more animals, one uses a process of selective breeding, (only breeding the best animals, and to use manufacturing natural selection), and the other is using genetic material to create animals from only the best animals, (manufacturing natural selection).
    • LastSight, on 01/17/2008, -11/+1yea i dont think id taste the same and quick question, do they clone it by inserting dna into an egg and then inserting said egg into a mother so that shed make a cloned baby? or something like that? cause if so then thats still kills an animal but then again its natures fault for not equiping them the means to fight against humans....personally i liked that zombie pig thing that causes pigs not to be afraid of dieing as meat..heheh funny stuff
      • venom8599, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6Yeah. That's how cloning actually works. It's not like they stick it in some machine and automagically get a copy.
    • Lukesed, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4People need to stop making up facts to support their ethics. Maybe cloning animals is wrong. Maybe genetically modifying food is wrong. Maybe organic is the right way to grow.

      You go too far when you start spreading lies that these things that may be wrong are actually physically harmful.
    • shiftclick, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4I think you guys missed the point: They are cloning PRIZED animals and then breeding them. So "Sparky", your prized Bull that fathers a gazillion offspring, dies after having sex about a gazillion times. You simply go into the fridge, and pull out some fresh "Sparky".

      He then has sex or gives sperm a gazillion more times. His offspring - "naturally" raised, are the food. Thus your investment in "Sparky" need never die.

      Don't know about you, but #1. I want this food labeled that it came the offspring of a clone, so that #2. I know not to buy it.
  • sportbikepilot, on 01/17/2008, -30/+5buried, baby in a sleeping bag
    • skyfire1, on 01/17/2008, -10/+1Reported.
      • danthek54, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2what the ***** does reported mean? who are you reporting it to? are there any consequences that'll come to the reported?
        • WorldGroove, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1If you bury a comment, the option to "report it" will appear.
          If you report-it, and alot of other people did the same, the Digg-Admins will eventually get around to looking at it. If they agree that it's offensive/spam, they will either send an email warning to the user... or just delete the account.
          In this case, I doubt that many people reported sportbikepilot. I, personally, try to reserve that for spamming(not regular spamming, I mean blantant crazy spamming where you look in the comment history and see the same comment on like 321893829 stories)...or any adult-websites.
  • 0crabby0, on 01/17/2008, -1/+48Mmmm... cloned bacon
    • knightblade2oo4, on 01/17/2008, -0/+13I think that we as Americans deserve the best meat science can provide.
    • geddon, on 01/17/2008, -3/+7The genetic similarities would allow a virus to cut through our food supply and produce mass hunger unlike any Irish potato's worst nightmare.
      • WorldGroove, on 01/17/2008, -7/+1When you clone an animal... the virus/germs in that animal are not part of the DNA code.
        • tizz66, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6No, but when there's zero genetic diversity, viruses can be extremely problematic.
          • cheesehead, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Particularly in the industrial food factory food system that's taking over agriculture. Google up some of this *****. Todays factory farmers are taking on the look of biochemists, because that's what it's coming down to, with crooked gov't, faulty technologies and overcrowded disease rearing paradigms. Only eat meat from small local producers...if you can find any. Suggest you grow your own protein if you can.
      • mtrip, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6That's basically what happened to bananas.
    • KielKilla, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2All I can think about is that fake fish on blade runner...
    • Lukesed, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1Keep in mind that the only difference between a clone and an identical twin is time.
      • rootneg2, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1that, and mitochondrial DNA and RNA
    • mal1964, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Cloves have been in ham for years.
  • allaboutdatiki, on 01/17/2008, -4/+11All the more reason not to eat cows or partake in milk-based products? Man, I could go for a nice juicy cheeseburger right about now ...
    • moofree, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4And a big milkshake...
      mmm... whataburger....
    • FlashGit, on 01/17/2008, -2/+0This is... a tasty burger.
    • Cloned, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1I had plans to drive an hour out of town to In n Out (don't have one here) and the girl I was going with calls me up and says she has to talk to me about going. I thought she was going to call it off, instead she told me that she decided to become a vegan after she saw the news last night.

      The FDA totally ruined my date.
  • JamesDiggem, on 01/17/2008, -3/+13Who wants to try hamburger version 1.0
    • Himself, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Will there be a government subsidized AntiVirus 1.0, too? Or perhaps genetic HIPS? only to be consumed in a sandbox?
      • rootneg2, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1ew, i don't want sand in my burger...
  • pmctosh, on 01/17/2008, -27/+15Please label my cloned burgers, really, this stuff can't be good for you. Or at least I'm sure they'll prove that in ten years.
    • Azerael, on 01/17/2008, -1/+11It's probably going to become better for you than non-cloned food.
  • reeder, on 01/17/2008, -32/+16No labels, but there will be a new market for milk and meat labeled as UNCLONED. You can bet your ass I will be purchasing those products.

    What the hell is happening to this country?!
    • gmprunner, on 01/17/2008, -7/+30I don't see the problem with cloned meat. Seriously, what's the big deal?
      • trigun1, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2I guess the question I have is what is it that you and apparently many other Digg members like so much about it? Is it that it’s technology so it must be good? The first mammal cloned, Dolly the sheep was cloned only 11 ½ years ago, a blink of the eye in the grand scheme of things. Dolly died at a young age of health problems that normally only effect older sheep. Was it cloning? Don’t know. This is a major change to the food supply, concern and skepticism should be the order of the day, not damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead! I’ve seen many other so call technological good ideas flop, and a food supply flop could be very bad. I neither support or oppose the idea, but I’d like to see it approached with caution!
        • PhantomBantam, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2Our main point is that you're ignoring all of the science that says GM and cloned foods are safe. Yes, I suppose it's a theory, and one that can be disproven, but that's what makes it science.

          you can buy your uncloned, organic meat. Just don't get the FDA to stop selling us cheaper or safer meat because of your irrational fears.
          • trigun1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Two unfounded assumptions on your part, cheaper and safer. What for the life of you makes you think it will be cheaper, because some money hungry corporate suit or politician said it would be? Dream on. Cheaper for industry be no means cheaper for me or you. Safer? At best it will be equally as safe as not cloning. Cloning adds a variable to the current non-clone system, and variables can add unforseen negative consequences. That’s not an irrational fear that is a rational concern.
          • Ryosen, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1The FDA has also said that aspertame is safe. We've all seen how well that turned out. Time and again their approval has been purchased.
    • billybibbit, on 01/17/2008, -2/+11i really wouldn't worry about any "cloned" products on the shelves unless cloning becomes remarkably cheap and efficient
    • Kr4t05, on 01/17/2008, -1/+17Food is food is ***** food. You're lucky that we as a nation can even consider the issue of cloning as a food source. Whereas there are people in this world who have trouble even getting naturally conceived or cultivated foods.
      Until I see any concrete evidence that cloned food is unsafe for consumption, I'll eat what I can afford and if cloned food happens to somehow become cheaper than "real" food, I'll go for it. At least it's not Soylent Green.
    • PhantomBantam, on 01/17/2008, -0/+30"What the hell is happening to this country?!"

      Advances in science and technology?
  • RadiantBeing, on 01/17/2008, -7/+64I don't see what the big deal is. Scientists have developed cows that are immune to bovine encephalitis. If these were cloned and put into the food stream, wouldn't you eat them? Now consider traits that are not of interest to consumers but make business easier for cattle farmers: hardiness, size, efficiency of converting food to muscle and fat, etc. Such cows will drive down costs and make beef more available to consumers. As long as the clones are safe, who loses?

    NPR story on mad-cow resistant cattle:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
    • phenry50BMG, on 01/17/2008, -24/+7"As long as the clones are safe, who loses?"

      Fine. Let's do a 5 year study to see what potential affects there could be from ingestion of scientifically modified meat. It's hard enough finding non GM vegetables and now we have to worry about GM meat as well?
      • staplez, on 01/17/2008, -2/+12See it's this lack of understanding that bothers me. First, a cloned animal is not genetically modified in anyway. In fact, if it IS modified then it wouldn't be a clone. Second GM vegetables have been perfectly safe for the last 30 years. The only reason someone is unhealthy is because of a LACK of vegetables these days, genetically modified or not. You don't hear people saying, dayum I'm unhealthy because I ate too many GM vegetables.
        • mal1964, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1Dugg, because i know what "dayum" means now!
        • jaxcs, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1If you're going to be a stickler about this sort of thing, then let's admit that cloning is a technique of birthing animals It doesn't preclude genetically modified cloned animals. And yes, I do think that cross breeding animals or plants for a particular trait is significantly different from taking a gene sequence found in a squid and placing it in corn.
    • billybibbit, on 01/17/2008, -11/+3digg me down, but one of the perks of being vegetarian is not having to worry about any of that
      • venom8599, on 01/17/2008, -1/+11Except for the fact that they genetically modify vegetables as well.
      • gmprunner, on 01/17/2008, -2/+7Worry about what? For crying out loud, what is there to worry about?
      • metric7, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Look at what happened with Starlink Corn a GMO that was only approved for animal use because it caused nasty reactions in some humans -- and then they discovered it in human food. Thanks Monsanto!
    • trebuchet03, on 01/17/2008, -0/+11Safety aside - I'm more concerned about having a bunch of identical cows on a factory farm... Not very much in the way of variation. So when the next disease/sickness comes around, we've got a bunch of sick/dead cows on a factory farm. Somewhat like living in Ireland and putting all your marbles in potatoes :p
      • mal1964, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1Cows were a big part of that.
      • bingobongony, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1No one is suggesting that they make cows the new bananas with EVERY single cow being a clone.
      • mal1964, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1Your comparison is about the same as, marbles and potatoes .
      • jaxcs, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I think you're right, a lack of genetic diversity can have disastrous effects should a particularly contagious disease strike the herd but your comparison is terrible. A larger part of the famine in Ireland occurred as a result of continued heavy export of agricultural products despite the potato blight.
    • mal1964, on 01/17/2008, -4/+1You don't have to eat it, Just like milk with hormones you have a choice,
      • jaxcs, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1when the meat industry agrees to real labeling saying their beef is cloned then there will be choice. Much like irradiated food, the industry will resist with all it's lobbying might to quash any kind of labeling at all. The truth is that genetic maipulated food benefits suppliers not consumers. The incredible growth of the organic food industry alone shows that people are highly resistant to Gen Foods.
        • mal1964, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Consumers, will benefit from having enough beef to eat, the population is not getting smaller. states will pass their own laws on the meat labels, and just like organic food, meat will have a market for non cloned with labels
        • jaxcs, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Consumers already have enough meat to eat, the population while growing has not outstripped the ability of farmers to raise cattle. Labeling is probably a federal mandate since it can too readily cross state lines.

          If organic labeling serves as a model, then cloning will be straightly or widely interpreted according to the legal needs of the company. For example, organic beef doesn't mean the cow from which it came spent it's days and nights on the field, nor does it mean that it was feed foods that are itself organic. The free range label is worse since it only requires that chickens have access to the outside irregardless of how probable or improbable for the chicken to make use of that access. Aside from the slippery nature of labeling practices, cloned foods will likely be priced higher and more scarce than non cloned foods making it unavailable to all consumers. Food should be food, we shouldn't need to join a hippie co opt to get fresh food to eat. In the modern world, to enjoy the same quality beef that your parents enjoyed, all they had to do was to step into any meat market in the world. Now, our meat must be labeled. Certified 100% organic, no antibiotics, grass fed, not grain finished, free range, non cloned beef. Makes me wonder how we are going to see the beef with all the labels it has to have.
      • jaxcs, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Sorry I meant, Certified 100% organic, no antibiotics, grass fed, not grain finished, NON CAGED, non cloned beef.
    • VaporBro, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6Honestly the idea of having a Mad Cow resistant herd of cattle is scary as hell. Mad Cow disease is contracted when a cow eats another cows brain. Why would we need Anti-Mad-Cow cows? Simple; so we can feed them brains and not worry about disease. Isn't that a little ***** up? And what about the humans that eat that meat? Making a cow that is resistant to eating cow brains is just asking for some ***** up disease to be passed on to humans.

      Want to make a Mad Cow resistant herd? Don't ***** feed them brains. Save those for the zombies that will come from eating the cloned meat.
      As for me; it's free range, organically fed turkey and chicken.

      Aim for the head.
    • Gabberwok, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1That might be a bad idea in this specific case, although I'm all for cloning in general. If one of these cows were exposed to BSE, I assume they would remain healthy. Would they then be able to pass it on to another cow or human though? I would prefer it if cows exposed to BSE became visibly sick so that farmers could remove them from the herd, rather than create a bunch of Typhoid Moo-ries.
    • frieddonuts, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I am fine with eating cloned meat, but I would like to have it specially marked on the packaging, so I can make the decision. It's irresponsible for the FDA to allow the meat industry to sneak it in like that, without markings.
      • mal1964, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1We will be informed, no one is sneaking anything,
    • fugazied, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1People don't trust scientists for the most part. Personally until they run a 50 year human study on what effects the food has on humans I'm not sold.
  • midoritsuru, on 01/17/2008, -22/+8What a great time to go vegan! (But then again, what about those GM fruits and veggies?)
    • mike17032, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2There is no such thing as a good time to be a vegan.

      Meat is ftw.
  • janetaSiri, on 01/17/2008, -0/+32You KNOW McDonalds is going to be all over this
    • billybibbit, on 01/17/2008, -3/+5mcdonalds goes for money, and cloned food costs waaaayyyy more than "normal" food
    • aahamedi, on 01/17/2008, -2/+14McDonalds uses meat in its food now?
    • bingobongony, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2This comment is about as ignorant as all those urban legends about McDonalds using mealworms as filler for their beef...when in the real world, mealworm costs FAR more per pound than beef does.
    • PizzaPops, on 01/17/2008, -0/+0"Made with 100% cloned beef"
  • GuacamoleSan, on 01/17/2008, -25/+8They already genetically engineer your produce...i find that just as gross...
    • gmprunner, on 01/17/2008, -3/+30Why? What's wrong with it? Seriously, I don't get why people have a fit over this stuff, especially when their only justification is "it's gross".
      • cheesehead, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1The further you get away from real food the sicker you get. Because your real body needs real food and real nutrition which can only come from heathy soil and animals and what they produce. Is there a factory food gmo crew working this post ? Or are all you city boys just dumb?
    • billybibbit, on 01/17/2008, -13/+4that is gross, but it is much easier to find locally grown organic produce than it is to find locally grown organic meat
      • mike17032, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2Of course that has been GEed over the thousands of years humans have been growing crops too, but this is somehow different to uneducated hippies.
        • loungechair, on 01/17/2008, -0/+0I think that there's a difference between selectively breeding a tomato so that it tastes better or grows better in a particular climate and tampering with the genetic material of a tomato so that it grows red instead of green and you can pick it and sell it before it's ripe. They're about as similar as breaking an egg and splitting an atom.
    • Kr4t05, on 01/17/2008, -1/+12It's just the typical Digger attitude. Tinfoil hats and all...
  • MrTito, on 01/17/2008, -5/+6Mmmm cloneburger. Creepy and delicious.
  • TheRealToma, on 01/17/2008, -9/+3Whats wrong with the meat I buy now thats not cloned?
    • Kr4t05, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8Nothing. But, there is a possibility that cloned food could be more economically feasible in the future. Considering how expensive beef is today, anything that could offer a cheaper alternative is pretty decent.
      • wing05, on 01/17/2008, -9/+3Yes, and dumping waste from factories directly into rivers and the land as well as smoke stacks without any air scrubbers was more economically feasible than having to clean it up.....

        Look what happened later.
      • thtroyer, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1Cheaper? How is cloning going to make beef cheaper?

        Beef is expensive due to 2 factors -- the cost of raising and the cost of processing. Raising any sort of farm animal for harvest must be well-fed and healthy. That requires food and medicine. Beef require a lot of corn (and/or hay), and with rising corn prices ($3-4 / bushel) and with (relatively) low prices on beef, many local farmers in the area have stopped raising cattle (Indiana). There's simply no money in it. Farmers are making more money selling their grain outright rather than raising livestock.

        On the second point, if you think you're going to get the industry to lower their processing fees, forget it. You see inflated prices on everything. Take corn chips for example. The farmers have been selling corn for less than $3.50 per bushel this past season. A bushel of corn is around 56 lbs. That's a little over 6 cents per pound of corn. Now, what's a bag of corn chips sell for in town? $2 or $3 per bag... and you might get a pound of corn? Same corn, ground up, salted, and cooked. Does that really justify the ~5000% markup between farmer and consumer? This type of price markup happens in all products across the board.

        I'm not sure how you're going to lower the cost of beef _right now_. I could see cloning or genetic modification being used to make a better breed of beef... (as was done with corn/soybeens, like RoundUp Ready products), but not anytime soon and there won't be any significant change. You've got to fix a lot of the _other_ problems in farming/economy first.
    • billybibbit, on 01/17/2008, -4/+2besides the awful effects on the environment?
  • TheBasass, on 01/17/2008, -4/+94They need to go beyond just labeling it as cloned and actually assign each clone strain an ID so you can tell which animal it was cloned from originally. That way if you have a really good steak for dinner you can go back to the store the next day and buy the same delicious steak again.
    • shcforward, on 01/17/2008, -0/+32Go to a restaurant and order the New York Strip from cattle geneline #43 - "The Bessie." Now that is an interesting marketing idea.
      • venom8599, on 01/17/2008, -1/+13Why is Bessie the first name everyone thinks of for a cow?
    • skyfire1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+10A good steak requires good nurture.
    • DumDumDog, on 01/17/2008, -1/+5I would like One Pound of Betsy the cow please.
    • Gabberwok, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Interesting, but they will probably never market actual clones to the public - just because they're incredibly expensive. Rather they'll use them to breed so they can sell very homogeneous offspring with the right characteristics. The original clones will also be prone to developmental defects that would not be passed down to their offspring, but would make them less suitable for a good burger.
    • mega-volt, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Genetics is only partly responsible for how a steak tastes. More importantly is how it was raised and what food it was given.
  • slashbot, on 01/17/2008, -8/+49Obviously a lot of fear mongering and misinformation being spread about cloned food.

    Cloned food is not dangerous. That being said, it is not exactly economical for most cases.
    • billybibbit, on 01/17/2008, -1/+14thank you
      before everyone gets all up-in-arms about eating cloned foods, think about the money required to clone an animal vs breeding them
    • tian2992, on 01/17/2008, -7/+3I trust cloned food, but not GM food
      • Kier, on 01/17/2008, -2/+15You're GM, assuming you have 2 parents. Any time something has had it's genes modified in some way, even if it's sexual reproduction, its genetic modification. Why should it matter if it's done in a field or in a lab?
        • Logicexe, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Well yes you're right, but mixing genes from different species and two members of the same species is a whole different ball game. I'm not yet convinced that these things are particularly dangerous for human consumption, I'm more worried about the environmental effects some of them might have. Animals are easy to manage but plants can spread easily and devastate ecosystems.
    • tgc1, on 01/17/2008, -5/+3How can you conclude this? Are you one of the people working for the FDA? Do you have first hand knowledge of the study in question? How can you make these assertions that it's 100% safe? Just label the ***** and move on. The market will sort this one out.
      • UnknownVariable, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2If the first cow is safe, the clone will be as well. Cloning creaties a duplicate. It's a carbon-freaking-copy of the first. There's no possible way for it to be detrimental to your health.
        • cheesehead, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Now I'm sure that this post is being managed by pro cloning lobbyists. And lamers
        • chuckDontSurf, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1"If the first cow is safe, the clone will be as well. "
          Didn't Dolly have major health problems and age rapidly? Obviously there are some differences.
    • negativenancy, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Begun, the Clone War has.
  • timorpheus, on 01/17/2008, -6/+3If its any consolation to anyone, they said that it may not be the clones themselves but the offspring. It seems like most people think that they will be eating the clones directly.
    • metric7, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Remeber what happened when Homer Simpson cloned himself?
    • quiggibub, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Oh come on now. You know the average person on Digg doesn't bother with anything more than the headline. The clones will be used for breeding purposes, and we'd eat the offspring. Clones are MUCH too expensive to eat on a regular basis. People are still going to flip out because they don't understand cloning and don't want to bother learning about it either.
  • Arkavus, on 01/17/2008, -3/+19As long as its held to the same standards (since it's cloned and people have some predisposition to being afraid to cloned meat it'll probably be higher) as regular meat then I have no problem with it.
    It's like you guys think these cloned animals (whom besides sharing the DNA of another animal have no real difference) are gonna turn you into zombies or something. Guarantee you've eaten meat that comes from an animal who was made through artificial insemination. You've eaten bananas that have been genetically modified, not counting other fruits and vegetables who have also been genetically modified.
    • tian2992, on 01/17/2008, -9/+1So genetic modifciation, a game of dices for genes is the same than artificial insemation or asexual plant reproduction. I would eat a cloned animal without thinking twice (well maybe for the cost), but i avoid as hell GM food
      • Lukesed, on 01/17/2008, -1/+5GM food is not a game of dice, unless you are some kind of test subject and the plant in question is made of mercury. GM plants are just plants that could evolve naturally given enough time and are subject to tons of testing becuase of all the paranoia. We have starving people in Africa who need food NOW.
      • Gabberwok, on 01/17/2008, -3/+2Yeah, for all the people who talk about how everything should be grown organically - if everyone in the world stuck by organic standards, we would only be able to produce enough food to feed around a third of the world's current population. Which is more important, boycotting GM food or ending starvation?
      • kleevr, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1sentence structure much?
      • jaxcs, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2There is already enough food to feed Africa, the problem is that they don't have enough money to pay for it. GM Crops may be hearty, but the seeds cost more too. if you read the wikipedia article, it sounds as if scientists in lab coats single handedly created the green revolution. But the incorporation of farms, heavy use of pesticides and fertilizer, mechanical farm equipment and irrigation probably contributed as much if not more.
    • UNCCEJ1010, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I mean, for crying out loud, the entire Green Revolution was based on GM seeds. Come on people. Get a grip. It's not a big deal.
  • billybibbit, on 01/17/2008, -2/+10all they said is that cloned food is theoretically safe. do you really think that is more economically feasible to clone a cow for slaughter than it is to artificially inseminate them like they usually do?
    you will not see cloned meat on the shelves unless somehow cloning becomes easier than doing it the natural way
    • Logicexe, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure if that's what they're planning to do. What they could do is simply make a bunch of clones of a "perfect" bull or cow and mass produce the semen to artificially inseminate the cows like they currently do. You won't actually be eating the clone, you'll be eating the clone's son.
    • KingGorilla, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Hmmm all the fun of having kids without that annoying sex in the way
  • Zlorp, on 01/17/2008, -5/+17uhm, exactly why would cloning have ANYTHING to do with the quality of meant/milk? a cow is a cow, cloned or not.
    • venom8599, on 01/17/2008, -1/+15It's about making better cows. Cows with preferred traits. It's kind of like a eugenics program for cows. We've been doing the same things with domestic animals for ages, only this time it's with cloning instead of selective breeding.
      • PhantomBantam, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2"It's kind of like a eugenics program for cows."
        Except it's the preferred cows that are slaughtered.
      • xlar54, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1So clone a cow and have it ***** its parent. Then you get the best of both worlds. Do it all at 88 MPH, and you'll ***** time travel.
  • tl1fan, on 01/17/2008, -16/+3This really sucks. I wouldn't be surprised if they've been doing this all along though.
    • darkphenox, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1What sucks about it?
    • quiggibub, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Really? They've been spending about a million dollars each time they want a baby cow that they're going to sell for a few thousand? Best business model ever!

      Idiot.
    • BrandonWicks, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Yeah, gotta say that I do not understand the whole "OMG, it's cloned, EWWWW!!!" reaction some people have. It reminds me of six year old boys and their deathly fear of cooties.
  • cheesenuggets1, on 01/17/2008, -3/+19i can has cloned cheezburger?
  • Mikhail101, on 01/17/2008, -15/+3what if the cloned animals some how produce to much or too little of some hormone, that will ***** our food up so bad. Like meat could be full of estrogen and grow boobs and vaginas on men. I remember dolly had some growth problems or something of that nature.
    • slashbot, on 01/17/2008, -2/+14Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of 'clone'.
      • ElBob, on 01/17/2008, -1/+11He said men might grow vaginas. I think there is a lot this guy doesn't understand.
    • Mikhail101, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2well your penis could turn inwards, dolly wasnt a perfect clone as she had growth problems
    • Gabberwok, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2Clones can have developmental problems. Their offspring do not - since the developmental problems are caused by the health of the embryo and the maternal environment, not any problem with their genes. Just like the way you were born with a mild mental handicap because your mother was a drunk... it won't be passed down to your kids.
  • peestandingup, on 01/17/2008, -16/+3Vegetarianism here I come!
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/17/2008, -9/+1It's painful, I tried it for a week and quit... but I may be joining you.. OH WAIT! They're tampering with the water and therefore vegetables as well... Oh well.. I suppose we eat good and die hard then, care to share a t-bone?

      Go to itunes to get Alex Jones' massively popular podcast to understand better what's going on in these f*cked up times.
      • Bamborzled, on 01/17/2008, -1/+5Yes, Alex Jones, the authoritative source on everything. Want relationship advice? Consult Alex Jones! Diet plans? Alex Jones! Debt consolidation? Alex Jones! Flying lessons? Alex Jones! Penis enlargement? Alex Jones! Free Cialis? ALEX JONES! See? He's the answer to all your problems!
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1What a weak attack. You'd have been better off shooting me with a water gun. BOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

          Refute his awesome documentation. Then come and do battle.
    • SzaszMan, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Go ahead and be a skinny wimp, see if I care. More muscle-building cloned beef for me.
    • moofree, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3You know that many vegetables are grown from cloned plants. :D
  • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/17/2008, -10/+2I see zombies in our future....
  • PhantomBantam, on 01/17/2008, -9/+16Sad that even on Digg there are so many xenophobes willing to completely ignore all scientific data that says cloned foods are safe.
    • fuzzums, on 01/17/2008, -0/+9How does that make them xenophobes? Isn't xenophobia fear of different cultuers and races?
    • PhantomBantam, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8Why'd I put xenophobes? I guess cows are people too. Stupid short digg comment editor.
      • gmprunner, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Stupid 'reply' button too, apparently.
    • SzaszMan, on 01/17/2008, -0/+9I think you mean "Luddite," not "xenophobe."
    • Fr4nk2012, on 01/17/2008, -3/+8yeah dude, I agree. Just like all the preservatives and additives that are safe. and the pharmas like vioxx and xanax that are safe. and the safe pesticides , and the safe way that we feed cows other cows, and the safe things like chlorine and flouride that we add to our tap water. Seriously it isn't as if money plays any part in labeling this things as safe.
      you can see how safe these things are by how amazingly healthy the average American is. It isn't like weve seen any kind of rise in chronic disease over the last few safe decades.
      • gmprunner, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2You do realize that without the things you just named our world would be much, much less healthy than it is now, right?
        • Fr4nk2012, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1right, like I said , it isn't as if we've seen any rise in chronic illnesses since we've started doing these things.
      • bingobongony, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1waaah waaah waaaah..pick a few things that are unsafe, and say that that is some kind of proof that the FDA is bought and paid for. They have a pretty damn good track record with what they do, often becuase htey are usually OVER-protective. (And by the way, there is nthign wrong with flouride in our water. Time to stop regurgitating the crap you see on the anti-everything websites that always have big PLEASE DONATE VIA PAYPAL links all over.)
    • Gabberwok, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1Are these French clones?
    • fugazied, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Show me a human study of people eating GM or cloned foods which goes over 20 year then I'd be satisfied. Science has a propensity for screwing up. ESPECIALLY when economic interests are involved, faith in science as a new kind of theology isn't the way to go, question that ***** and double check the 'facts' provided by private institutions running up patents.
    • Loulou07, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1who paid the guy that does the study get the result he wants or he does not publish the godam study... See
      Welcome to cancer, heart attack, obesity and whatever else
  • aaroh, on 01/17/2008, -14/+9The one thing I've learnt in this life-time so far, never mess with nature it always comes back to bite you in the ass.
    • Feep, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4You're so wise.
    • KRNpro, on 01/17/2008, -2/+0You should learn to use the word "because"
    • AlexanderZero, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2You're right lets undo all science and technology.
  • 11b1p, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6I love meat AND potatoes. Can't we all just get along?
    • Gabberwok, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Potatoes - now those can kill you. Keep them out of the light and don't eat the green ones - unless you have a high tolerance for solanine.
  • Azerael, on 01/17/2008, -2/+32Why is everyone so scared of this? It's not dangerous. Clones are just like identical twins, not lizard/cow hybrids that shoot fire.
  • soot, on 01/17/2008, -0/+42"How does that burger taste?"

    "Just like yours."
  • Ymeg, on 01/17/2008, -3/+19Cloned food is essentially just like eating food... I don't know why this is such an issue. They are not creating chemical monsters what will devour you.
    • Kier, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6Dugg up for truth.
      Stop the hippies spreading FUD.
  • KidFlash2, on 01/17/2008, -5/+4Who wants genetically homogeneous food? It's poison enough already!
  • slightlygifted, on 01/17/2008, -3/+3the real question is are cloned cows considered sacred in india? if not they might just stop being so................vegetarian.
  • Kr4t05, on 01/17/2008, -5/+5To those out there who have the typical knee-jerk reaction to this, or just didn't RTFA, I'm here to simplify things for you.

    "The cloning industry, made up so far of only a handful of firms, expects that it will be the offspring of cloned animals, not the costly clones themselves, that would provide meat or milk to U.S. consumers."
    This means that the "cloned" food products will be conceived, raised and butchered in much the same way as "regular" livestock. The only difference is that there will be a larger pool of well-bred animals. The cloning industry has come far enough that problems like mutation and the like are remote and easy to prevent.

    "Several major food companies, like Tyson Foods Inc, quickly stated that they are not signing up for cloned livestock, at least right away."
    The current public opinion of cloning is keeping cloned food from shelves of your local grocery store, at least for the foreseeable future.

    "Others in Congress and civil society believe more testing is needed before concluding that cloning is safe, especially with consumer confidence marred by recent food scares."
    Cloning technology can only get safer. As time goes on, we'll see more success stories and the public opinion may well change on this topic. Or, maybe not, and meat prices will just climb higher.

    "The FDA notes that the ethical and moral implications of cloning fall outside the scope of its findings. Critics, like the U.S. Humane Society, say cloned animals born with defects or prone to disease are proof the technology is a bad idea."
    There is still a margin of error. That's the way any science works. As stated above, time will see that margin of error decrease significantly.

    So, relax folks. It's going to be a long while before we see anything cloned in our local McDonald's.
    • Intercon, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Nice work. The only problem is that you don't know what the ***** you're talking about. Ever heard of a telomere? The fact of the matter is that McDonald's and their ranchers have the ability to pour billions of dollars into this technology, which could potentially save them billions of dollars over the next decade. The McClone burger is coming faster than you think. As far as the 'safety' of this type of 'product', take a look at what the introduction of fertilizers on a global scale has done to the environment, specifically as relates to soil erosion, coastal areas in decline, coral reefs decimated, and oceanic dead zones. Know one knows what kind of impact this homogenization of the food chain will have on the physiology of future generations, not to mention the loss of genetic diversity in the animals we eat.

      Rethink your nutritional needs to reflect the needs of the planet as a whole, and I guarantee you will be eating better and healthier. No Clones!!!
    • chuckDontSurf, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1"It's going to be a long while before we see anything cloned in our local McDonald's."
      That's great, except for the fact that we won't know when it *does* appear, seeing as how they don't have to label it.
  • CrankyHippo, on 01/17/2008, -1/+14one step closer to caffeinated bacon, and baconated grapefruit
    • slashbot, on 01/17/2008, -6/+3Please explain what cloning has to do with that.

      On a tangent, I do find the reference and the idea of such products funny
    • tian2992, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4and Archduke Chocula...
  • downlowfunk, on 01/17/2008, -13/+3Its time to start eating Organic GMO FREE Hemp Protein!!!!
    http://www.hempforme.com/articles/proteinpowder.ht ...
    Hemp Hemp Hurray
  • GorfTron, on 01/17/2008, -0/+11Now that clones are common, I demand my jetpack and robot friend.
  • skyfire1, on 01/17/2008, -4/+6This should get PETA to shut up. Too bad it won't.
  • cl2yp71c, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6As long as the burger doesn't speak to me, it's fine.
    • Arramol, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1No worries, those don't come until the end of the universe.
  • AzureRise, on 01/17/2008, -6/+1Yay! We've finally created more life so we can take it away! Now pass me that burger. I wanna taste the difference, so kill that one and then kill it's clone. (I'm not saying I'm against it, I'll ***** eat it. Just pointing out the irony ;D)
    • Camgore, on 01/17/2008, -1/+0You should pick up a dictionary and look up the word irony.
      • AzureRise, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1We're creating life, and then killing it. We're making something to destroy it. That's irony.
  • downlowfunk, on 01/17/2008, -8/+4Time to start eating Hemp for protein. After all it does contain the most digestible protein.

    http://www.hempforme.com/articles/proteinpowder.ht ...

    HEMP HEMP HURRAY
    • downlowfunk, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1wow its sad you dig down the truth. And to think most of you attend or have attended university's. and here I am highschool drop out on top of my game when it comes to health. I make doctors call the feds, mean while their patients are dying from the pills!!
      • KidFlash2, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1You are plugging your site.
      • downlowfunk, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0You are an idiot its not my site I am plugging. maybe your plugging your *****. I am trying to educate you poor pathetic jack asses.
  • Travisx2, on 01/17/2008, -6/+7The US Govt, can't tell the difference between coke can on the back of a camel and WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION can't find any difference between cloned and el natural..
    Well, that is enough for me!!!
    • KRNpro, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1wtf is a weapon of mass distruction?
    • bingobongony, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1So...you just go through your entire life trying to trun every conversation into an anti-Bush bitchfest, no matter how unreleated the conversation may be? You must be REALLY fun at parties.
  • marrstu, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5I just hope that perfect cows become more regular bringing the price down on a really good steak. Not sure if that would happen seeing a lot of how good the meat most probably has to do with the environment in which it is raised.
    • dylanfan40, on 01/17/2008, -1/+0feed and processing costs are what keep meat prices up. It has very little to do with the animals. Thank ethanol and biodiesel for that one.
  • DumDumDog, on 01/17/2008, -6/+3Dose it taste EVIL ?

  • dkern, on 01/17/2008, -5/+1http://www.hugequestions.com/
  • tian2992, on 01/17/2008, -4/+1Damm, people fear more cloned meat than GM plants, sad but true...
  • scabbers, on 01/17/2008, -4/+13Sounds great until the lack of genetic diversity leads to all the cows dying out from the next virus that comes along.
    • bingobongony, on 01/17/2008, -2/+3Again...where are you getting hte impression that the plan is to create nothing but cloned cows?
    • giddieon, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3I agree and very well said... we will be ***** in a while...
  • Phatlip012, on 01/17/2008, -2/+4Pardon my french, but isn't it cheaper to have two animals ***** and birth offspring for me to eat rather then spend money cloning them?
    • week, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3In the long run, cloning them will be cheaper. The initial investment in cloning will be a high price, but it will save money over time.
      • charlie55, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2and also we can breed the tastiest possible animal and clone his yummy ass.
      • tgc1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Oh common, when have you EVER in your life had a bad steak?! For ***** sakes people. It's always tasty.
      • xlar54, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1How will the process of cloning ever be cheaper? Ridiculous notion. There's no cheaper way than to make two animals *****.
        • tgc1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Corporations just like to put prices on things. And take out the middle man. Which is you and me. Pretty soon they'll be mandating human cloning because sex burns too many calories. *smacks head* great scott!
          • scotticus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1You're the middle man? So you jerk of cows?

            Isn't cloning really adding a middleman?
    • phantasyhero, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4The main idea with cloning is to produce consistent genetic equals. Not to save money.
      • xlar54, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I dont think anyone will be able to tell the difference between two good cuts of meat.
  • merper, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5Ah genetic engineering, the one issue that makes extremist lefties and extremist righties cower in unwarranted fear together.
  • phantasyhero, on 01/17/2008, -7/+9There's nothing different between cloned animals and natural levels.
    If you're too much of an enviromentalist hippy, that's your own problem. Bring on the cloned ribeyes!
    • phantasyhero, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2Excuse me, "animals", not "levels", and "environmentalist", not "enviromentalist".
      I'm tired.
    • verstohlen, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2Yes, there IS a difference. Once is cloned, and the other is not!
  • rcausgrove, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3Now chicken nuggets can be perfectly discussing every time!
    • venom8599, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4If you hear chicken nuggets discussing things, it's probably time to go see a psychiatrist.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.