Cloned meat

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't think it matters, ethically. But if people care about whether or not cloning has been used for their food they have a right to know.

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 en ...[text shortened]... o has the most incentive and means to research rather than a mass of non-associated consumers.

I disagree. Where do you draw the line, and how what percentage of consumers must be concerned for such labeling to be required by law? What amount of difference in death rate is a problem?

If I notice that a certain breed of cow has a higher death rate than another (this is true), then can should firms automatically be required to label all meat products showing the breed of cow and average death rate?

You do know that most milk is produced by killing the calves?

What do people really care about? I am willing to bet that the majority of people making a fuss are simply scared of cloning because it sounds scary. It has nothing to do with death rates of embryos.

Originally posted by FMF
Originally posted by Wajoma on a recent thread
On Food Safety - [b]The factory should be allowed to produce poison provided they don't claim it is something it is not. [/b]

Hi FM, thanks for reposting that, I stood by it then and do so now. Factories produce all kinds of truly lethal chemicals, at one factory we used to do maintainance was a colourless odorless liquid that was lethal just from skin contact. So they should not be allowed to put that in a bottle and sell it as "Ol Gran'mas Genuine Homegrown Lemonade', you see if they did put it in a bottle and claimed it was "Ol Gran'mas Genuine Homegrown Lemonade" they would be making a claim about their product that wasn't true.

Originally posted by Wajoma
The factory should be allowed to produce poison provided they don't claim it is something it is not.

What if a factory produces poisonous food but doesn't make any claims about it? Should it be allowed to to do that?"

Originally posted by FMF
What if a factory produces poisonous food but doesn't make any claims about it? Should it be allowed to to do that?"

Surely if they call it 'food' they are making a claim abouit it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. Where do you draw the line, and how what percentage of consumers must be concerned for such labeling to be required by law? What amount of difference in death rate is a problem?

If I notice that a certain breed of cow has a higher death rate than another (this is true), then can should firms automatically be required to label all meat produ ...[text shortened]... ply scared of cloning because it sounds scary. It has nothing to do with death rates of embryos.

The death rates just show that we should not assume the products are the same and should be labeled as such. It's pretty simple, really. As for the usual "where do you draw the line", I just did. Where do you draw the line? What labels should be necessary?

It's also easy to see that you only feel this strongly about it because some Luddites types attack it.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Surely if they call it 'food' they are making a claim abouit it.

So you are saying they must label it with the word "food"? Should the government enforce this regulation?

Originally posted by FMF
So you are saying they must label it with the word "food"? Should the government enforce this regulation?

No I'm not saying that, get's kinda tedious you telling me what I'm saying then commencing to say something I'm not saying.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Hi FM, thanks for reposting that, I stood by it then and do so now. Factories produce all kinds of truly lethal chemicals, at one factory we used to do maintainance was a colourless odorless liquid that was lethal just from skin contact. So they should not be allowed to put that in a bottle and sell it as "Ol Gran'mas Genuine Homegrown Lemonade', you see if ne Homegrown Lemonade" they would be making a claim about their product that wasn't true.

You don't think someone who puts something like that on the market be forced to add a warning to consumers that it's lethal to skin contact?

Originally posted by Wajoma
No I'm not saying that, get's kinda tedious you telling me what I'm saying then commencing to say something I'm not saying.

Well what you are saying is kind of ideological-gone-daft so it's understandable that you dodge questions about it, famously so.

Originally posted by Palynka
You don't think someone who puts something like that on the market be forced to add a warning to consumers that it's lethal to skin contact?

No, that should not be regulated, nor should you buy products that you know nothing about.

Do you really think manufacturers are going to not issue a warning with that type of product? that they want their consumers dead? As with alcohol and heroin there should be an age limit but other than that if you want to buy a liter and paint it all over yourself that's your business.

Originally posted by Wajoma
No, that should not be regulated, nor should you buy products that you know nothing about.

But a factory should be allowed to produce poison provided they don't put a label saying "food" on it?

Originally posted by FMF
But a factory should be allowed to produce poison provided they don't put a label saying "food" on it?

Like it or not there are extremely toxic substances that are really quite useful, I suggest you don't eat them.

Originally posted by Wajoma
No, that should not be regulated, nor should you buy products that you know nothing about.

Do you really think manufacturers are going to not issue a warning with that type of product? that they want their consumers dead? As with alcohol and heroin there should be an age limit but other than that if you want to buy a liter and paint it all over yourself that's your business.

Well, yes, people died that's why these regulations were made. Then less people died. Simple! Tobacco companies were saying for decades that smoking was not harmful, and making up bogus studies in the process.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Like it or not there are extremely toxic substances that are really quite useful, I suggest you don't eat them.

Well that's good. Food producers should be required to label their foods so that consumers can make informed choices about what the food contains. Any fraud should be punished. Seeing as entrepreneurs might agree with you when you say they should be allowed to produce poison provided they don't claim it is something it is not, or as long as they don't put a label that says "food" on it, it is quite clear that self-regulation is not an option.

Originally posted by FMF
Well that's good. Food producers should be required to label their foods so that consumers can make informed choices about what the food contains. Any fraud should be punished. Seeing as entrepreneurs might agree with you when you say they should be allowed to produce poison provided they don't claim it is something it is not, or as long as they don't put a label that says "food" on it, it is quite clear that self-regulation is not an option.

You're going to be real busy running around putting labels on all those poisonous things that occur naturally.

The solution would be all those concerned about such things can purchase foods certified by an independant organisation. i.e. user pays, you use a food certifcation system you pay for it, you don't use a food certification service you don't pay for it.