Cloned meat

Originally posted by utherpendragon
You have a good point there. Should the buyers be aware through labels,etc of the the distinction ? Or does it make no difference ?

Making consumers aware of stuff is great and important - if it matters. For example, I think we'd all agree that if they paint the slaughterhouse blue instead of red, that's something the consumers need not know to help them make an informed decision.

In this case, AFAIK, cloning is simply an alternate method my which to fertilize cows. The only difference between an adult cloned cow and an adult naturally conceived cow is that the cloned cow is genetically identical (mutations excepted, of course) to some other cow from which is was cloned.

Does the consumer need to know that to make an informed decision as to whether to buy the meat?

True to the stereotype, I'm going to answer with a question: If two identical twin cows are born and raised and slaughtered, does the consumer need to be told that this package of meat comes from an identical twin?

Now, if someone can show a real difference in makeup of the meat or taste or risk or whatever, that's a different ballgame. But until that happens, I don't see why the consumer needs to know something that seems to me to be kind of irrelevant.

Originally posted by sh76
Making consumers aware of stuff is great and important - if it matters. For example, I think we'd all agree that if they paint the slaughterhouse blue instead of red, that's something the consumers need not know to help them make an informed decision.

In this case, AFAIK, cloning is simply an alternate method my which to fertilize cows. The only difference b n't see why the consumer needs to know something that seems to me to be kind of irrelevant.

The question is if we know whether it matters or not.

For example, there seems that there is a much higher death rate for clones (embryos and post-partum) and so there seem to be differences we are not yet aware of. This seems to disappear past weaning age, so that's encouraging, but until we understand the differences I think labelling them as a different product is a fair demand.

The onus should be on the firms to show these differences do not matter, rather than wait until someone shows they matter and only then disallow it. Better to err on the safe side, IMO. Also it is the seller who has the most incentive and means to research rather than a mass of non-associated consumers.

Originally posted by Palynka
The question is if we know whether it matters or not.

For example, there seems that there is a much higher death rate for clones (embryos and post-partum) and so there seem to be differences we are not yet aware of. This seems to disappear past weaning age, so that's encouraging, but until we understand the differences I think labelling them as a differen ...[text shortened]... ho has the most incentive and means to research rather than a mass of non-associated consumers.

Well, if Milton Friedman were here he'd say:

1) Let the companies decide whether to put the info on the label or not

2) If someone gets hurt because of the nondisclosure (e.g., contracts a disease that cloned animals tend to carry) and did not have a chance to make the informed decision because of the nondisclosure, then let them sue the meat manufacturing company for damages.

The onus, as you put it, can be manifested in the civil liability on the part of the companies. This gives the seller the same incentive to research to avoid liability.

Otherwise, if there truly is no danger and no difference, the government doesn't need to tell companies to put warnings that may stir irrational fears.

Originally posted by sh76
Well, if Milton Friedman were here he'd say:

1) Let the companies decide whether to put the info on the label or not

2) If someone gets hurt because of the nondisclosure (e.g., contracts a disease that cloned animals tend to carry) and did not have a chance to make the informed decision because of the nondisclosure, then let them sue the meat manufacturin ...[text shortened]... the government doesn't need to tell companies to put warnings that may stir irrational fears.

People getting sick and maybe dying becomes a 'free market force' and trumps the absolute affront to freedom that some regulation that requires corporate transparency and responsibility represents?

"My brother died. But on the plus side we were able to sue. Thank goodness there were no regulations. Regulations always lead to a Command Economy and compulsory bicycle helmets."

Originally posted by FMF
People getting sick and maybe dying becomes a 'free market force' and trumps the absolute affront to freedom that some regulation that requires corporate transparency and responsibility represents?

"My brother died. But on the plus side we were able to sue. Thank goodness there were no regulations. Regulations always lead to a Command Economy and compulsory bicycle helmets."

I think, perhaps, you may have me confused with Wajoma. 😉

My suggestion was in response to Pal's position that the onus is on the companies to prove that there is no difference.

Obviously, if there is affirmative proof that there is a danger, the government would be justified in stepping in to prevent deaths (after a careful balancing test weighing the pros and cons of the regulation, of course).

I do not think the government should be forcing companies to put warning labels on products that there is no evidence of any need for.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Genuine LOL. Recommended.

🙂

Originally posted by sh76
Well, if Milton Friedman were here he'd say:

1) Let the companies decide whether to put the info on the label or not

2) If someone gets hurt because of the nondisclosure (e.g., contracts a disease that cloned animals tend to carry) and did not have a chance to make the informed decision because of the nondisclosure, then let them sue the meat manufacturin ...[text shortened]... the government doesn't need to tell companies to put warnings that may stir irrational fears.

That would be fine and dandy, but limited liability means that companies have limited downsize risk and will therefore be willing to accept higher probabilities of a massive problem relative to what would be socially desirable.

Originally posted by Palynka
That would be fine and dandy, but limited liability means that companies have limited downsize risk and will therefore be willing to accept higher probabilities of a massive problem relative to what would be socially desirable.

Certainly true, though the size of these meat packaging and distributing companies make me believe that, though their liability is limited to the company's assets, it would be a strong enough incentive to get a hold of their financial interests.

Originally posted by sh76
Certainly true, though the size of these meat packaging and distributing companies make me believe that, though their liability is limited to the company's assets, it would be a strong enough incentive to get a hold of their financial interests.

Ok, we reached a fundamental level of disagreement that neither can prove. 🙂

Would you apply this argument to Big Pharma, as well?

Originally posted by Palynka
Ok, we reached a fundamental level of disagreement that neither can prove. 🙂

Would you apply this argument to Big Pharma, as well?

You mean beyond the meeting of the FDA/applicable regulatory agency in the country testing requirements?

Then yes. I have no problem with testing regulations and the FDA approval process. Beyond that if there is a factor that has not been shown to be harmful, I have no problem with leaving the decision as to warn about it up to the company.

Originally posted by sh76
You mean beyond the meeting of the FDA/applicable regulatory agency in the country testing requirements?

Then yes. I have no problem with testing regulations and the FDA approval process. Beyond that if there is a factor that has not been shown to be harmful, I have no problem with leaving the decision as to warn about it up to the company.

Why "beyond the FDA"? Isn't that exactly the things we are talking about?

Originally posted by Palynka
Why "beyond the FDA"? Isn't that exactly the things we are talking about?

The FDA (hopefully) doesn't order food companies to post speculative warnings on their products. Or, at least, they shouldn't.

Originally posted by sh76
The FDA (hopefully) doesn't order food companies to post speculative warnings on their products. Or, at least, they shouldn't.

Nobody is talking about speculative warnings, but simply that the product to be labelled as cloned meat. For allowing the meat in the market is another level of the conversation for which we already did not reach agreement.

Does the FDA not require that new food products be shown to be harmless before entering the market? It does so for new drugs. Does it not also regulate the labelling of food products?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
A campaign to put controls on cloned meat and milk was killed off yesterday by the UK Government and Brussels.

The move signals the start of a free-for-all in ‘Frankenfood’ – despite claims the technology is cruel and unethical.

[b]Shoppers will be left in the dark because products from the offspring of cloned animals will not require special la ...[text shortened]... oducts-sale-minister-sabotages-Europes-ban-call.html#ixzz1I2faOmZo


[b]Is this ethical ?[/b]

Check out the faqs at:

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/default.htm

Originally posted by sh76
Why would growing meat to slaughter and eat be ethical but cloning meant to eat be unethical? Are we really worried about the cow's individuality?

It's not a question about ethics, is it?
Surely the problem is that nobody knows what the long term effects can be of cloning / genetically modifying food are?

Take Monsanto, for example, they deliver one-year seeds to farmers (so they have to keep buying). The farmers, to protect their crop, also have to buy a special anti-bug spray which kills off everything but the genetically modified crop (take soya as an example in Argentina). This basically kills off the complete bio-diversity in the region that the crops are grown (no insects = no birds and no pollination).

If you clone meat you're gonna want to clone something that's good. This will inherently lead to the same situation as in the crops.