backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by number999.. on Jan 26 at 8:49 PM

The recent decision by the FDA will only ignite a debate for years to come

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently made a tentative conclusion that meat and milk from some cloned animals is safe for human consumption.  The decision has paved the way for the United States to become the first nation that allows products from cloned animals to be sold in grocery stores. 

After years of numerous delays, the FDA report found that there is not much of a difference in composition of food from cloned animals compared to normal animals.  Even if the FDA's assessment is officially approved in 2007, consumers may not be able to products from cloned animals since the technology remains too costly to be widely used.

The decision on Thursday immediately drew comments from critics from across the nation.  Opponents to cloned food are aiming to throw Congressional pressure to delay the policy before it is finalized.

Consumer groups are gravely concerned over potential health issues that may arise in some of the cloned animals.  Some cloned animals may have weakened immune systems and will need more drugs to stay healthy, according to activists and critics.

Don't be surprised if you begin seeing some sort of "clone-free" labels on meat and dairy products from cloned animals.  Ben & Jerry's ice cream, for example, already mentions that its farmers do not use any sort of bovine growth hormone on its cows.  Many opponents are not necessarily against cloned food, but want to make sure consumers know exactly what they are purchasing.  The FDA found, however, that there is "no science-based reason" for having to label cloned foods.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Cheap
By Don Tonino on 12/31/2006 4:26:46 AM , Rating: 3
What issue is that report published on? or where can I find it on The Economist website?

I'm wondering, if European economic policies as a whole are so unsound as you make them, how comes they haven't collapsed yet? Scandinavians countries have been applying more or less the same policies for at least 60 years now, if not longer, and their economies are quite healthy so far and let them invest heavily in social protections for their citizens as well in research and education. Does the average swede or norwegian then just sit back? According to The Economist, I see unemployment rates that are more or less the same as the USA ones, if not even less. And Scandinavia as a whole has had a bigger GDP rise than USA over the last year... seems like some people are actually doing some work there no matter how pampered they are.

Saying that the state pays everything for them is quite skewed too, as surely many expenses are covered by the state, but you pay taxes for that; even the much flaunted 'free university' isn't really free at all, because once you graduate you have to pay back everything. And being lazy won't pay at all, because you have to graduate in a certain amount of years else you'll start paying taxes and having to refund the state all the same. There are a lot of university students that attend university because they don't have to pay almost anything up front; at the same time, almost all of them do want to graduate on time and get to work, as they will need to repay for the university plus usually having to pay for a flat and support a family - Not exactly the attituide of someone that just want to leech the state.

Mind, I'm not saying that Europe is economic heaven, or that the average European economic policies are the best ever - just that they aren't as bad or unsound as you make them. Sure there are plenty of issues that will have to be addressed sooner or later, but so far people are having a good time in Europe: they are overall healthy and cared for, they enjoy living there and especially some of the countries whose economy was real bad are recovering quite well (Ireland, Spain, Baltic countries)

As for the psychologist side of your post, I'm no psychologist as well but I find your characterization of Europe as 'socialism and massive government' quite extreme and just partly true - and your conclusions to be not warranted so far. You have to realize that plenty of people in Europe just don't want, don't like and are not interested in the kind of 'work ethic and capitalist spirit' you praise so much (again - I'm not saying it to be wrong, just saying that other people in other places will have other opinions), and are pursuing their own approach to care for their own welfare - having been doing this for centuries, and still no collapse as you project.

Just as a side note, the first ever 'socialistic' labor laws were introduced by Bismark in the 1880s, and look how quickly Germany has collapsed...



RE: Cheap
By Ringold on 12/31/2006 5:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
Not the most recent issue, but the one before. Dec 9 - 15th issue, page 81, the bottom half of Swedes have a collective net worth of less than zero. Therefore, dependent upon the state handouts.

The unemployment number I told you was opaque. Of course they dont report include, say, people disabled from a panic attack several years ago and have simply had a doctor help him milk his generous unemployment benefits for as long as possible (again, Economist, um, no idea what issue, prior to Swedens most recent elections). Such people officially aren't 'unemployed' because they're not seeking work at all. Hence the special note.

As to a link to that, I first googled and found this site, a post by a member of a Swedish libertarian think-tank. http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/sanandaji_2... Totally neutral source? Probably not. Logical data? Yes.

Then I tried to find it on the Economist website, and found someone complaining about it in the Sept 21 issue. Therefore, I suspect it showed up in the issue before that. Which I no longer have myself. The first site suggests numbers in line with my own (which were from memory, and I noted at the high end of what I believe possible), and also throws in some tidbits I wasn't aware of.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory...

I can't see the full article, but the first paragraph alone supports what I said, and even the official reported UE # would be considered atrocious by American standards.

Notice, too , I never even implied 'collapse'. You introduced alarmist language, not I. I merely pointed out the compounding effects of lousy growth (EU: 2.6, 1.7 for 07) would put EU further and further behind capitalist high-flyers (US: 3.3 & 2.2 for 06 07 Hong Kong with 6.8, India with 9, Taiwan with 5, South Korea with 4.6, Russia with 7.4). Yes, there's ground to be made up by those economies, but some of them are rather advanced as it is, including Hong Kong, S. Korea and Japan (2.8). No, Europe wont collapse at all. The better word is merely 'stagnate'. The social issues I mentioned are symptoms of a culture that is, in its current form, unable to create competitiveness, which leads to more low growth. I'm not saying anything new, Google will reveal a horde of economists with top-notch experience, education and positions saying it with more urgency than I.


RE: Cheap
By Ringold on 12/31/2006 5:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/sweden/...

Bingo, not my original source, but even better. Sven Larson, PhD, comprehensive report on Sweden. It brings up a whole slew of things I didnt even touch. The most relevant one, I think, is a qoute from Hans Karlsson, member of the Prime Ministers cabinent, in a blurb right below table 7 just over half way down. He said they hide it, I said it was opaque. People who arent politicians or lawyers would call it a lie.

Hopefully thats enough to satisfy. If not, I can't push any more. Some people wont even buy evolution, others wont ever buy in to capitalism.


RE: Cheap
By oTAL on 1/1/2007 7:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
I partly disagree with you. Not on everything as my previous post has shown. I'm all in favour for capitalism and rewarding those who are able to create wealth... I just think you're too much in favour of the kind of savage capitalism we tend to view as wrong. The one where you build your wealth at the expense of others. Wealth can be made and distributed using your workers and companies around you as partners and colaborators. You don't have to leech every cent you can from them.
As for the social issue, I think it is as importante as the economic one. Why? Because it is a huge issue when these days a person is born with no economic value. What this means is that for about 18-25 years a human being is a burden to the society that must feed him, cloth him and, most of all, provide him with the required education to function and be be productive in our society.
I think I don't need to quote sources when I say that, in the U.S., a person born in a bad neighborhood with poor parent(s) will hardly have a good future. There are, obviously exceptions. But those are more and more the stuff of legends... that one guy you met a long time ago that came from nothing... In Europe, on the other hand, and as was previously mentioned in this discussion, "free" access to education is a lot easier. If you show an above average skill (I really mean ONLY "above average"... no need to be exceptional) you may be helped along your entire path. And I really mean HELPED. That, of course, has costs. And that means that, directly or indirectly, depending on the model of the country, people do pay for their education. Yet they are allowed to become someone before they do it. I myself know of many poor people who finished their studies. It's pretty common and all it requires is motivation and hard work. You do not need to be the stuff of legends...
That brings us to the problem.... and the problem is that, due to the socio-economic model on may of these countries, people pay their education indirectly... and in many cases you are paying for the education of this rich freeloader who's been changing courses for the last 10 years always partying hard and studying soft. As for the for the ones that do graduate... many times, these highly educated, highly skilled, highly self-motivated, highly ambitious, highly productive people...well... they forget that the european social model was what allowed them to get where they are, and they go to work on the U.S. for the very high wages they are now entitled to get. The U.S. economy profits from an European investment...
So... the world is not perfect, and I'm only giving a glimpse of some of the things that I see happening... Many other stuff I don't event imagine happens around both economic models... I just hope I may be giving you a new perspective on something you may have never thought about ;)


RE: Cheap
By jabber on 1/2/2007 5:55:56 AM , Rating: 1
I'm always quite intrigued by the comments that in comparison to the USA, Europeans seem to live in the dark ages due to falling behind economically.

Its strange because on the visits I have made to the US over recent years, I have been in more US homes that look like something from the 1960/1970's than anywhere else on my travels.

You just dont see homes like that in Europe very often or at all.

I agree that isnt thew whole story but there are a lot of poor folks wherever you go, east or west, good economy or poor economy.


RE: Cheap
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2007 10:58:30 AM , Rating: 4
> "You just dont see homes like that in Europe very often or at all."

The average home size in the US is now over 2400 sq. ft. In my own neighborhood, the smallest home in the division is well over 5000 sq. ft, the largest is over 15,000 sq. ft.

The average home size in Austria is 85 sq. m...thats about 900 sq. ft...or one third the size. In England, its 99 sq. meters, not much larger. Most of the rest of Europe is the same.


RE: Cheap
By jabber on 1/3/2007 5:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
Since when does size have anything to do with how well equipped or the quality of ones home? Yes I have seen some really big homes but a lot are either lived in by packrats or look like I Dream of Genie.

Its easy and quite cheap to make a home when you are not using bricks, which is the material of choice in most euro homes and land is far far cheaper. I wouldnt be surprised if building regulations are far stricter in Europe (they certainly are in the UK) also. I'm always quite amazed that folks in tornado country build their homes from cheap matchwood and then wonder why they dissapear overnight with them sitting huddled in the bath or closet.

Size isnt everything. Anyway not to worry.

"We could have been killed...or even worse!"


RE: Cheap
By masher2 (blog) on 1/3/2007 8:43:36 AM , Rating: 3
> "Since when does size have anything to do with how well equipped or the quality of ones home? "

Since forever. Is it a perfect metric? No, nothing is...but its far better than any other we have. The OP's original (and quite incorrect) point was his personal observation of how poorly America must be doing based on his view of the average home.

Americans spend more on their homes than Europeans. They can afford too-- they make quite a bit more per capita. The homes are larger and better equipped. This is simple fact. You can argue the merits of European socialism all day long. But you cannot argue this.

> "Its easy and quite cheap to make a home when you are not using bricks"

My home is all-brick, and it added about 3% to the cost of construction. In an area where brick is more expensive, it would add maybe 6%...its not a large difference.

And, despite your impression of homes being continually swept away by tornadoes here, its really a rare occurrence. A properly built wood home can easily withstand a class 2 tornado...and a wood home is actually much better at withstanding earthquake tremors than is brick.


RE: Cheap
By Ringold on 1/3/2007 3:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
Your first paragraph discredits again your understanding of economics. It's not "savage" capitalism, it's competition that forces an economy to remain vibrant, healthy and growing. And I directly refuted the incorrect European view in some post of building "wealth at the expense of others". Such a thing cannot happen. People choose low priced products and save money in America buy buying from WalMart, enabling them to buy more for their money and increasing their standard of living. WalMart employees make the choice to work there when Target And KMart down the street are hiring (yet never get nailed by Congress) so everyone along the "savage capitalism" chain is profiting. Wealth only comes at the expense of others when it's stolen, and free-market transactions are mutual agreements, not stealing.

On the social thing and neighborhoods.. Studies show, every bloody year, that America has more upward mobility than almost anywhere else on Earth. I suspect that may change one day, perhaps the East shall join us, and others will catch up, but if you're poor and feel motivated to succeed there is only one nation you want to be in, and thats America. The last place you want to be is, say, France, eating organically grown government-handout veggies.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki