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: What of it?
By wien on 12/31/2006 10:54:56 AM , Rating: 2
The sad thing is that meat production puts more strain on the ecoystem than does the pollution from every car on the planet.
Hmm.. I've never gotten this point. Anything coming out of a cow, would have to go into the cow at some point right? Wouldn't that mean cows have no net-contribution to the amount of methane floating around? This unlike cars that burn fossil fuels that have been in the ground for millions of years.

RE: What of it?
By masher2 on 12/31/2006 11:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
Cattle are essentially a (very inefficient) mechanism for converting grain into methane and meat. Grain goes in one end, methane out the other. And methane is over 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as is CO2.

Finally, grain requires vast amounts of fossil fuels to produce (not just to run the farm machinery and transport it, but to produce the fertilizers required as well). So the average herd cow "burns" more oil than most people's cars.

RE: What of it?
By wien on 12/31/2006 11:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
The pollution from the way we do farming today I can understand, but wouldn't the methane produced by cows somehow get absorbed back into the system at some point? Or is the problem the damage (global warming) the gas does before that happens?

RE: What of it?
By masher2 on 12/31/2006 11:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
> "but wouldn't the methane produced by cows somehow get absorbed back into the system at some point? "

Yes it does...but then so does CO2 as well. But cattle farming produces methane faster than its rate of atmospheric decay, so the net concentration still rises.

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki