Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Clones Safe to Eat Says FDA
The Washington Post is reporting that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 968-page report will declare that meat and milk from cloned cows, pigs and goats are as safe to eat as foods from conventionally bred animals. According to the Post:
Scientists ... looked at nutrient levels in meat and milk from a few dozen cattle and pig clones and hundreds of their progeny, and compared them with values from conventional animals. They measured vitamins A, C, B1, B2, B6 and B12 as well as niacin, pantothenic acid, calcium, iron, phosphorous, zinc, 12 kinds of fatty acids, cholesterol, fat, protein, amino acids and carbohydrates including lactose.
For almost every measure, the values were virtually the same. The few that differed were still within the range considered normal.
Separately, the agency looked at studies in which milk and meat from clones were fed to animals for up to 3 1/2 months. There was no evidence of health effects, allergic reactions or behavioral changes.
Let's not forget that we have been eating clones for generations. Lots of fruits are clones, including grapes, bananas, and some varieties of apples.
The FDA may allow food produers to label their products as deriving from non-clones. Since at least some meats will derive from elite meat-producing animals, I personally will seek out cloned steaks when they become available.
The International Herald Tribune is reporting that European Food Safety Agency will approve meat and milk from cloned animals as safe to eat, too. This is good news for science-based decision-making, given that Europeans have often been ridiculously risk-averse when it comes to the food products derived from modern biotechnology.
Whole Post article here.
Dave W.|1.15.08 @ 11:14AM|#
The FDA may allow food produers to label their products as
deriving from non-clones.
lol
Calidore|1.15.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Ron Bailey,
Since at least some meats will derive from elite meat-producing
animals, I personally will seek out cloned steaks when they become
available.
Wouldn't that decision be determined by the cut of meat
involved?
|1.15.08 @ 11:23AM|#
The possible negative health effects of eating cloned meat has
NEVER corssed my mind until this post. There I considered it.
Anybody know where I can get cloned meat? The gengineers aren't
going to waste that effort on anything but top of the line, primo
animals.
Bingo|1.15.08 @ 11:26AM|#
The gengineers aren't going to waste that effort on anything
but top of the line, primo animals.
Could you really eat the world's most perfect steak over and over
again for the rest of your life?
I know I could!
kinnath|1.15.08 @ 11:32AM|#
The gengineers aren't going to waste that effort on anything
but top of the line, primo animals.
That's where tech starts, but market forces will drive the research
towards producing the mediocre as cheaply as possible.
Not that there's anything wrong with that (can you say "DVD player
for thirty bucks").
R C Dean|1.15.08 @ 11:35AM|#
That's where tech starts, but market forces will drive the
research towards producing the mediocre as cheaply as
possible.
I can't imagine its any cheaper to clone an average cow than it is
to clone an award-winner.
Your marginal costs will come in how the cow is raised, I suppose,
but starting with better genetic stock is bound to raise quality
across the board.
Is there even a theory floating around out there about how cloned
meat has health risks not present in bred meat?
Calidore|1.15.08 @ 11:39AM|#
kinnath,
How one cooks the meat is as often as not more important than the
cut of meat.
kinnath|1.15.08 @ 11:44AM|#
I can't imagine its any cheaper to clone an average cow than
it is to clone an award-winner.
Not necessarilly average. From my limited reading, the most
"desirable" traits for cloning would be disease resistance, growth
rates, or other any traits that lead to an acceptable product
(taste) and lower overally production costs. These are all "above
average" traits from the producers point of view, but not
neccessarilly what the end consumer cares about.
Dave W.|1.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Sure, here's one:
BACKGROUND FACTS:
1. red meat has been associated with higher incidence of colon
cancer:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/2/172
2. This suggests that red meat has some chemical component in it
that causes colon cancer in some way. Let's call the chemical
component X.
THEORY:
1. Cloned meat has more X.
I don't think this has been studied because we don't yet know what
X is. That means that my theory is an untested theory. It doesn't
mean they should ban cloned meat. Some labelling requirements would
be appropriate, though, so each individual consumer can choose in
light of the stubborn uncertainty. I know, I know. *tiny
violin*
carrick|1.15.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Dave W. You should spend more time worrying about whatever substance it is that you consume today that leads you to be as whacked out as you already are ;-)
Guy Montag|1.15.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Ah ha! The last bit of info I needed before beginning my abandoned urban building veal farming project!
thoreau|1.15.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Since at least some meats will derive from
elite meat-producing animals, I personally will
seek out cloned steaks when they become available.
So, you prefer the elite "cosmo" clones over the
old-school "paleo" non-clones.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.15.08 @ 12:26PM|#
The question de jour is this: Will PETA still hate me for eating New York Steak concocted in some high-tech lab?
Russ 2000|1.15.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Will PETA still hate me for eating New York Steak concocted
in some high-tech lab?
The important thing to remember is SOMEONE will hate you, not
necessarily PETA.
thoreau|1.15.08 @ 12:30PM|#
The real question, TWC, is which cloned wine you should eat with the cloned steak.
kinnath|1.15.08 @ 12:34PM|#
The real question, TWC, is which cloned wine you should eat
with the cloned steak.
A wide variety of Cabernet clones should be appropriate.
R C Dean|1.15.08 @ 12:39PM|#
1. Cloned meat has more X.
Umm, I don't know if that's a theory, quite yet, Dave W.
Speculation, perhaps. But not anything I would call a theory,
because it can't be tested, since you don't know what to test
for.
thoreau|1.15.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Fortunately, Dave, we live in a world where there are a lot of
people selling organic food. If you're so concerned that
biotechnology, pesticides, chemical additives, and whatever else
will contaminate your precious bodily fluids, you can go buy the
organic stuff.
I call this the Dan T. solution.
Dave W.|1.15.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Umm, I don't know if that's a theory, quite yet, Dave W.
Speculation, perhaps. But not anything I would call a theory,
because it can't be tested, since you don't know what to test
for.
well, let's explore exactly what our difference is here, RCD. Is my
theory that there is something in traditional red meat that causes*
colon cancer a valid theory in your opinion?
FOOTNOTE:
* By "causes," I mean "causes" in the probabilistic sense, rather
than in some inevitable or deterministic sense. I really hate to
saddle our exchange with this kind of trivia, but I have gotten
guff on this point here at HnR in the past (not from you,
I don't think, but you never know when the peanut gallery will jump
in).
you can go buy the organic stuff
That is going to be a whole lot easier in a world of mandatory
labelling. Which is all I am proposing here.
GILMORE|1.15.08 @ 1:09PM|#
People should be more careful. This is how the Clone Wars
started.
All I care about is can i get a table at Peter Lugars this weekend.
Man, if they can clone that shit... the world will be a happier
place. Also a fatter place.
i declare a forcefield around this post preventing anyone from
making the ubiquitous, "Lugars is like so overhyped, see, this
place in Omaha is 10X better and Im cool cause i know and i hate on
Lugars because they dont allow me to order what i want and plus
they were rude to my girlfriend and the place wasnt even like that
fancy and whats with all the butter? you could eat a shoe cooked
like that plus they didnt have my favorite 200yr old scotch and i
dont speak german so they were mean"-post
Guy Montag|1.15.08 @ 1:36PM|#
All I care about is can i get a table at Peter Lugars this
weekend.
In the future that will be a Taco Bell.
kinnath|1.15.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Dave W., please get with the program.
From: A Glossary of Frequently Misused or Misunderstood Physics
Terms and Concepts.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm
Hypothesis. An untested statement about nature; a
scientific conjecture, or educated guess. Formally, a hypothesis is
made prior to doing experiments designed to test it.
Theory. A well-tested mathematical model
of some part of science. Theories are said to be successful if (1)
they synthesize and unify a significant range of phenomena; (2)
they have predictive power, either predicting new phenomena, or
suggesting a direction for further research and testing.
kinnath|1.15.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Dave W. you have a lot of fears and anxieties, but you rarely state anything that even reaches the definition of even a real hypothesis.
|1.15.08 @ 1:41PM|#
thoreau | January 15, 2008, 12:30pm | #
The real question, TWC, is which cloned wine you should eat with the cloned steak.
Thoreau got a
link on Andrew Sullivan yesterday.
Dave W.|1.15.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Theory. A well-tested mathematical model of some part of
science.
I cited an article posted in JAMA that had a study regarding red
meat consumption and colon cancer. Isn't that sufficient testing to
give my speculation the status of a "theory?" If not why not?
Bingo|1.15.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Dave W:
What kind of red meat? What were the sources of the meat? How was
it raised? How was it prepared? What other common lifestyle
activities did the consumers participate in?
Most people that eat like crap happen to eat a lot of red meat, but
correlation is not the same thing as causation. Someone that eats 4
Big Macs for dinner is not in the same diet bracket as someone that
has a nice lean steak.
kinnath|1.15.08 @ 1:57PM|#
I cited an article posted in JAMA that had a study regarding
red meat consumption and colon cancer. Isn't that sufficient
testing to give my speculation the status of a "theory?" If not why
not?
You made a couple of wild-ass, unsupported claims.
1) the correlation of red meat consumption and colon cancer is due
to a mysterious compound X. By itself, the possibility is not
supported by anything you have stated so far, but it is also within
the realm of possibility given the causes of other types of
cancers.
2) cloning could somehow result in higher concentrations of this
mysterious compound X. This is a totaly unsupported claim that has
no basis in any observed effect of cloning that I am aware
of.
Taken in combination, your two claims are largely bullshit, and
that combination doesn't even equate to a bad hypothesis.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.15.08 @ 2:02PM|#
The real question, TWC, is which cloned wine you should eat
with the cloned steak.
There's a lot of that cloned wine going around already. :-)
kinnath|1.15.08 @ 2:07PM|#
Dave, there is a direct correlation between my inability to read
the newspaper without my bifocals and the fact that my beard has
gone grey.
So, I hypothesize that I can get rid of glasses if I dye my beard
back to its orginal color.
At least my hypothesis is easy enough to test.
kinnath|1.15.08 @ 2:08PM|#
I'm assuming cloned people will still be off the
menu?
You need to wait for virtual people.
|1.15.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Will cloned meat have any effect on the "meat is murder" argument? Or am I thinking of another way of growing meat (in vats or something)?
The Wine Commonsewer|1.15.08 @ 2:16PM|#
I'm assuming cloned people will still be off the
menu?
Depends upon what you're eating I suppose.
|1.15.08 @ 3:02PM|#
At first glance I thought title of the article was -- Clone says FDA safe to eat.
R C Dean|1.15.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Dave W., you've got a number of problems to overcome before you
can achieve your dream of banning cloned meat:
(1) You need to confirm that red meat is correlated with colon
cancer.
(2) You need to confirm that red meat causes colon cancer.
(3) You need to establish what it is in red meat that causes colon
cancer.
(4) You need to demonstrate that this causative factor is more
present in cloned meat than in bred meat.
kinnath|1.15.08 @ 3:30PM|#
I always trust the government to behave in ways that benefit the government.
|1.15.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Will cloned meat have any effect on the "meat is murder"
argument? Or am I thinking of another way of growing meat (in vats
or something)?
Perhaps you were thinking of
this.
From the article -
In a paper in the June 29 issue of Tissue Engineering, a team
of scientists, including University of Maryland doctoral student
Jason Matheny, propose two new techniques of tissue engineering
that may one day lead to affordable production of in vitro - lab
grown - meat for human consumption. It is the first peer-reviewed
discussion of the prospects for industrial production of cultured
meat.
Neat stuff, huh?
Dave W.|1.15.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Dave W., you've got a number of problems to overcome before
you can achieve your dream of banning cloned meat:
(1) You need to confirm that red meat is correlated with colon
cancer.
(2) You need to confirm that red meat causes colon cancer.
(3) You need to establish what it is in red meat that causes colon
cancer.
Putting aside the cloned meat for a second, I was trying to figure
out whether I had established a "theory" even for traditional meat.
Presumably the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association,
some of the people at your hospital may have heard of it)
establishes (1) and (2). If the JAMA article didn't deal with (1)
and (2) sufficiently, then why don't you think that?
As far as (3) do you really have to establish (3) to have a theory?
Is it really impossible to just have a general theory that
something in red meat causes colon cancer, without knowing the
exact identity of the something?
kinnath|1.15.08 @ 5:17PM|#
High intake of red and processed meat reported in 1992/1993
was associated with higher risk of colon cancer after adjusting for
age and energy intake but not after further adjustment for body
mass index, cigarette smoking, and other covariates.
Dave, this is a very, very, very long way from indicating that red
meat "causes" cancer.
So as I posted earlier you are making two wild-ass, unsupported
claims that something in red meat contributes to cancer and that
cloning will somehow increase this effect.
So you are still full of shit.
R C Dean|1.15.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Correlation is not causation, Dave. They need to posit and prove
up the mechanism by which red meat causes cancer. That hasn't been
done yet, I assure you.
And even if they get that far, you will still need to
prove that cloned meat is worse than bred meat.
Plus, I got news for you:
The cloned cows are going to be used for breeding stock. Its too
expensive to clone them for slaughter. So all the meat you eat will
be from the descendants of cloned cows, but will not be from the
clones themselves.
|1.16.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Dave W., you're making an awfully big leap of faith in calling a
single study published in JAMA (or even a couple of studies
published in JAMA... or even two dozen studies published anywhere)
sufficient "meat" to be called a theory.
As a scientist, I appreciate and thank you for your faith in us,
but that's not how we roll.
1. Correlation is NOT causation: "high beef consumption is
positively correlated with the incidence of colon cancer," is a
fine correlative statement, but it doesn't mean anything
substantive. It is, however, an okay place to start building your
hypothesis.
2. So your hypothesis is, "beef consumption causes colon cancer."
Good, now how do you test that? Your hypothesis isn't complete
until you insert a How statement. What's the mechanism?
3. You could say, "beef consumption causes colon cancer because
eaters of great quantities of beef build up [a particular substance
which you think is relevant because you've done preliminary testing
of preliminary hypotheses which indicate this substance may be
involved] in their large intestines which enters the epithelial
cells by [some other mechanism you have similarly defined by
hypothesis, testing and validation] and causes [some complex
molecular change in the DNA structure/nuclear envelope/some
signalling pathway/some other biochemical mechanism] which leads to
a loss of apoptosis and unregulated cell division (cancer)."
Good Job! Now your hypothesis is developed and you're ready to test
it.
4. You weren't ready for this, were you? This is tough. Complex
biochemical, genetic and molecular biological pathways take a long,
long time to dissect. In the field, we do this by developing ever
finer hypotheses, picking at each step of the mechanism,
experimenting to determine how each pair of molecules interacts,
gradually drawing a picture of what's going on.
And guess what? You're still not at a theory.
Why? Because only people who are trying to derive overarching
general principles (evolution, string theory, relativity, etc.) get
to have theories.
Those of us who deal with the nose-to-the-grindstone science stick
to hypotheses because we know that the process of science is never
finished and what you learn only leads to more questions - more
hypotheses.
No one studying cancer or any other molecular process ever talks
about "theory" because we're not talking about principles and
ideas. We're talking about nuts and bolts - how molecules interact
with each other in physical ways.
Ok? So stop with the theory talk already. It's an inappropriate use
of the term.
|1.16.08 @ 10:08AM|#
Lordy, lookit all the effort I put into what is probably a dead thread. I think I'm going to cry.
Dave W.|1.16.08 @ 10:31AM|#
I am talking about what it takes to establish a "theory." RCD
and some of the lesser lights are talking about what it takes to
prove a theory. We are talking past each other.
I don't think it has been proven that red meat causes colon cancer.
That is why I don't want it banned. Even if it was prove that red
meat somehow caused colon cancer at the molecular level, I probably
still want it banned.
Neverthless, I think mandatory labelling is a nice intermediate
measure when food has potential unknown, perhaps unknowable risks.
With traditional red meat, no labelling is needed because people
grow up with the stuff and can make the judgement for themselves.
However, with cloned meat we don't know the risk and should require
labelling. Some ppl may want to hold off and see how long Ron
Bailey and RCD and THoreau actually live. We should give them this
option, and, in fact, we should make this option as easy to
exercise as possible. It does not hamper Bailey's or RCD's or
Thoreau's anticipated clone eating in the slightest.
|1.20.08 @ 3:57PM|#
I believe meat from cloned animals likely would be safe for
food.
HOWEVER; the gene pool for our food animals is already shrinking
rapidly. Add cloned production and now existing genetic diversity
will implode. What then when something not now on the horizon
appears and all these super similar animals fail? Eat insects for
protein?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245