Would you eat meat from a cloned Cow??

[Gatecrasher]

i wouldnt like to myself but apparently its been going on for ages.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk/Meat-from-cloned-cow39s-calf.6455355.jp

did anyone else know?? :ill:

[Hibs Class]

i wouldnt like to myself but apparently its been going on for ages.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk/Meat-from-cloned-cow39s-calf.6455355.jp

did anyone else know?? :ill:

Supposedly it was from the offspring of a cloned cow which, according to an expert on radio 4 this morning, would be less of a risk than eating the cloned cow itself. I'd rather eat cloned meat than genetically modified meat, but then I am just a typically ill-informed member of the public who is easily swayed by headlines referring to Frankenstein food!

[HibeeB]

i wouldnt like to myself but apparently its been going on for ages.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk/Meat-from-cloned-cow39s-calf.6455355.jp

did anyone else know?? :ill:

Yes.

I'd be interested to hear why you wouldn't.

[Gatecrasher]

Yes.

I'd be interested to hear why you wouldn't.

i have never liked the idea of cloning.

Whether its animals or people, its the same with designer babies.

i feel its messing with something we shouldnt be, its more of my stance on the subject rather than thinking the meat will harm me.

[HibeeB]

i have never liked the idea of cloning.

Whether its animals or people, its the same with designer babies.

i feel its messing with something we shouldnt be, its more of my stance on the subject rather than thinking the meat will harm me.


IMO all of the arguments against cloning can be equally apllied to selective breeding, which has been going on without any fuss for hundreds of years.

Edit; BTW I have no beef with your ethical stance.

[Woody1985]

If given the choice between natural cow meat and a cloned it would be the former every time. I think that living creatures should be left as they are and not ****ed around with by scientist.

However, from what I know of GM crops, admittedly not a great deal, is that I would rather eat GM fruit than a cloned animal. I think options like this will become a lot more necessary as the worlds population grows and resources become less available.

My views are probably a little screwed up as I support stem cell research that can help people walk again etc.

[bighairyfaeleith]

If it was served with a nice blue cheese sauce then yes, defo:greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

If cloning is good then cloned animals will thrive along with the people who eat it.

It it's crap then the opposite will happen.

[Twa Cairpets]

If cloning is good then cloned animals will thrive along with the people who eat it.

It it's crap then the opposite will happen.

"If cloning is good". In what way good? Do you mean tasty? More agricuturally efficient? Better yields? Quicker growth rates? More resistant to disease?

I think to ignore the potential offered by cloning technology is to close our eyes to the potentail to stave off illness,waste and famine in the future. It if course needs controlled, studied and constantly reviewed, but in principle I'm fine with it.

[lyonhibs]

If it tastes good, then yes.

[Jack]

If given the choice between natural cow meat and a cloned it would be the former every time. I think that living creatures should be left as they are and not ****ed around with by scientist.

However, from what I know of GM crops, admittedly not a great deal, is that I would rather eat GM fruit than a cloned animal. I think options like this will become a lot more necessary as the worlds population grows and resources become less available.

My views are probably a little screwed up as I support stem cell research that can help people walk again etc.

I think there’s a problem there woody in that humans have been mucking about with animals, almost since day one – same with plants.

Dairy herds are dairy herds because over generations the best milking cows have been paired with the best bulls produced from the best milking cows, same for the best meat producers.

Housewives used to ask for brown eggs because they were better, weren’t any different to me, but can you but white eggs these days – I’ve not seen one for years!

Breeding programmes have bred the ‘unwanted’ out of the original animal and replaced that with more ‘good’ bits.

What's the difference? Cloning and genetically modified are just hurrying these things 'natural' along, they might not be fully developed just now but they will be.

[Woody1985]

I think there’s a problem there woody in that humans have been mucking about with animals, almost since day one – same with plants.

Dairy herds are dairy herds because over generations the best milking cows have been paired with the best bulls produced from the best milking cows, same for the best meat producers.

Housewives used to ask for brown eggs because they were better, weren’t any different to me, but can you but white eggs these days – I’ve not seen one for years!

Breeding programmes have bred the ‘unwanted’ out of the original animal and replaced that with more ‘good’ bits.

What's the difference? Cloning and genetically modified are just hurrying these things 'natural' along, they might not be fully developed just now but they will be.

But surely breeding the two best mates isn't the same as cooking a cow (or whatever) up in a lab. We have the technology to do it but do we really know how they will develop and their childrens, children will develop?

I just had minced beef lasagna for lunch. :greengrin It was cracking. :tee hee:

[HibeeB]

But surely breeding the two best mates isn't the same as cooking a cow (or whatever) up in a lab. We have the technology to do it but do we really know how they will develop and their childrens, children will develop?

I just had minced beef lasagna for lunch. :greengrin It was cracking. :tee hee:

"Breeding the two best mates" is genetic manipulation. Cows would never have evolved to produce so much meat and milk without human intervention. There is no way this is of any benefit to the cow.

Also "best" is a subjective term. All dogs are descended from the wolf but some modern breeds are so inbred that they can hardly breath or walk without their belly dragging along the ground or standing on their ears or whatever. If cloning had produced these animals it would have been cruel beyond belief.

If I were a wolf I'd be ashamed to be related to a dachshund :devil:


BTW, theres a reasonable chance that the tomato in your lasagne sauce was GM.

[(((Fergus)))]

"If cloning is good". In what way good? Do you mean tasty? More agricuturally efficient? Better yields? Quicker growth rates? More resistant to disease?

I think to ignore the potential offered by cloning technology is to close our eyes to the potentail to stave off illness,waste and famine in the future. It if course needs controlled, studied and constantly reviewed, but in principle I'm fine with it.

By good I mean compatible with/contributing to life in general. Size of yield, growth rate and (apparent) resistance to disease are not necessarily indicators of that.

Anyway, time will tell and if others want to experiment on themselves then that is their right. Personally, I'm happy with more traditional foods.

[Twa Cairpets]

But surely breeding the two best mates isn't the same as cooking a cow (or whatever) up in a lab. We have the technology to do it but do we really know how they will develop and their childrens, children will develop?

I just had minced beef lasagna for lunch. :greengrin It was cracking. :tee hee:

One of the issues with cloning and GM is that the exposure the vast mass of the public have is accompanied by "Frankenstein foods" or "designer babies" as mentioned earlier in the thread. It therefore immediately becomes emotive and people take an irrational fear to the idea, as its quite clear that if you give those bad old scientists an inch they'll end up creating armies of cloned warriors that are in the pay of the Bilderberg Group acting to form the New World Order!

Cloning is a complicated subject - this link (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml)is quite a good intro. Interesting to note also that any asexual reproductive process - of which there are many - create clones, so no-one should claim that it is an unantrual process.

If you have said "no", the next question to ask is "why have you said no". If its on moral grounds, fair enough. That seems to me to be a similar choice to be being vegetarian or vegan". If the "no" is on grounds of some kind of "just doesnt seem right", then you owe it to yourself to look into it further.

[Twa Cairpets]

By good I mean compatible with/contributing to life in general. Size of yield, growth rate and (apparent) resistance to disease are not necessarily indicators of that.

Anyway, time will tell and if others want to experiment on themselves then that is their right. Personally, I'm happy with more traditional foods.

Still not getting it. What would make it "compatible with/contributing to life"? Providing more food? providing enhanced nutrition through breeding/growing protein enhanced/reduced fat varieties?

[Woody1985]

"Breeding the two best mates" is genetic manipulation. Cows would never have evolved to produce so much meat and milk without human intervention. There is no way this is of any benefit to the cow.

Also "best" is a subjective term. All dogs are descended from the wolf but some modern breeds are so inbred that they can hardly breath or walk without their belly dragging along the ground or standing on their ears or whatever. If cloning had produced these animals it would have been cruel beyond belief.

If I were a wolf I'd be ashamed to be related to a dachshund :devil:


BTW, theres a reasonable chance that the tomato in your lasagne sauce was GM.

Genetic manipulation or not those options were still open to the cow to mate providing the cow came into contact with the other. It's not really 'man made' in the same way that cloning is. And whose to say that evolution wouldn't have taken that path given the nature of evolution? It may have taken a few hundred thousand/million years but it was/is still a possibility.

I think indreeding is a different matter because humans consiously select relations to one of the animals they're trying to mate with. Evolution wouldn't necessarily take that cycle.

To be perfectly honest, this isn't really a subject that does it for me so I'm going to bail out and just read the rest. :greengrin

P.S I''m related to a horse, I must have just got the bad genes!

[Makaveli]

There would be plenty of food to go around if we didn't waste so much of it on cows and pigs :wink:

40% of all grain grown is fed to livestock, not to mention the massive amount of land they occupy which could be used to grow food. All while over 1 billion people don't have enough. But we need those 99p cheesburgers, right?

[HibeeB]

Genetic manipulation or not those options were still open to the cow to mate providing the cow came into contact with the other. It's not really 'man made' in the same way that cloning is. And whose to say that evolution wouldn't have taken that path given the nature of evolution? It may have taken a few hundred thousand/million years but it was/is still a possibility.

Selective breeding is entirely 'man made'. The inbred offspring from selective breeding would not have arisen naturally unless there was no external pressure on their progeny, eg predators, disease etc, to allow them to survive. Inbreeding killed off the Pharaos, and is generally accepted as being harmful to a species. Without intervention from humans these freaks would not have survived and reproduced. For instance, fat cows would be unlikely to evolve naturally as they would be least fit to survive attack by predators, and so would be weeded out of the population leaving slimmer, fitter cows in their place.

As someone mentioned earlier, cloning is a form of asexual reproduction. The main problem with that is that there is no room for adaptation/evolution. In cloning genes aren't altered as they are in sexual reproduction. And that is the very reason cloning is being tried in farming; to maintain the best stock without the ('bad') changes possible when sexual reproduction occurs.

So to take this to it's natural (:greengrin) conclusion; meat from a cloned cow is purer than meat form a cow produced sexually.

[Makaveli]

Selective breeding is entirely 'man made'. The inbred offspring from selective breeding would not have arisen naturally unless there was no external pressure on their progeny, eg predators, disease etc, to allow them to survive. Inbreeding killed off the Pharaos, and is generally accepted as being harmful to a species. Without intervention from humans these freaks would not have survived and reproduced. For instance, fat cows would be unlikely to evolve naturally as they would be least fit to survive attack by predators, and so would be weeded out of the population leaving slimmer, fitter cows in their place.

As someone mentioned earlier, cloning is a form of asexual reproduction. The main problem with that is that there is no room for adaptation/evolution. In cloning genes aren't altered as they are in sexual reproduction. And that is the very reason cloning is being tried in farming; to maintain the best stock without the ('bad') changes possible when sexual reproduction occurs.

So to take this to it's natural (:greengrin) conclusion; meat from a cloned cow is purer than meat form a cow produced sexually.

But the cow being cloned ("mum") is also the subject of selective breeding, so by your earlier reasoning the cloned cow ("bairn") is surely as equally unnatural as the selectively bred cow ...

[Woody1985]

There would be plenty of food to go around if we didn't waste so much of it on cows and pigs :wink:

40% of all grain grown is fed to livestock, not to mention the massive amount of land they occupy which could be used to grow food. All while over 1 billion people don't have enough. But we need those 99p cheesburgers, right?

Percentages are irrelevant when posting something like this. 40% of the grain that could be used for food could in fact generate (and probably does) 10, 20, 50 times that amount when it's user is turned into food.


But the cow being cloned ("mum") is also the subject of selective breeding, so by your earlier reasoning the cloned cow ("bairn") is surely as equally unnatural as the selectively bred cow ...

Good point. I think you'd have to separate them all out so they could never breed. After all, you could just sping up a new one in a minute.

P.S sorry for coming back, maybe I like fat cows more than I thought. :greegrin

[Makaveli]

Percentages are irrelevant when posting something like this. 40% of the grain that could be used for food could in fact generate (and probably does) 10, 20, 50 times that amount when it's user is turned into food.

Really? The conversion of protein from plants to animals is tremendously inefficient. Do you have any idea how much food livestock actually consume?

"Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption."* edited to fix this linky (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html)

The same link states that animal protein is only 1.4x more "nutritious" (I'm not sure exactly what they mean) than plan protein... so 41m tons of plant protein would need to result in 29m tons of animal protein just to break even, four times greater than the actual yield.

[HibeeB]

But the cow being cloned ("mum") is also the subject of selective breeding, so by your earlier reasoning the cloned cow ("bairn") is surely as equally unnatural as the selectively bred cow ...

Absolutely.

But it is the ultimate achievement in Man's selective breeding programme. The holy grail of selective breeding and so must be preserved. Cloning is a way of maintaining this holy cow for generations to come unaltered by the vagaries of sexual reproduction.

[(((Fergus)))]

Still not getting it. What would make it "compatible with/contributing to life"? Providing more food? providing enhanced nutrition through breeding/growing protein enhanced/reduced fat varieties?

If the people producing and eating these animals maintain or even improve their level of health and if the cloning/farming process in itself is sustainable.

[Woody1985]

Really? The conversion of protein from plants to animals is tremendously inefficient. Do you have any idea how much food livestock actually consume?

"Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption."* http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html])

The same link states that animal protein is only 1.4x more "nutritious" (I'm not sure exactly what they mean) than plan protein... so 41m tons of plant protein would need to result in 29m tons of animal protein just to break even, four times greater than the actual yield.

See, facts work better than percentages!

[Makaveli]

Absolutely.

But it is the ultimate achievement in Man's selective breeding programme. The holy grail of selective breeding and so must be preserved. Cloning is a way of maintaining this holy cow for generations to come unaltered by the vagaries of sexual reproduction.

Ah I get you now.

Out of genuine interest, does anyone have any reliable info on the longevity of cloned animals and their suitability for future cloning?

Also how high is the success rate these days? I know with Dolly there were obviously an untold number of failed attempts but surely the scientists have pretty much nailed it by now..


FAO Woody: I was in a rush when I posted earlier hence no real evidence! The 40% figure is just always in my head :greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

There would be plenty of food to go around if we didn't waste so much of it on cows and pigs :wink:

40% of all grain grown is fed to livestock, not to mention the massive amount of land they occupy which could be used to grow food. All while over 1 billion people don't have enough. But we need those 99p cheesburgers, right?

Yes we bloody well do, now sod off!!:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Really? The conversion of protein from plants to animals is tremendously inefficient. Do you have any idea how much food livestock actually consume?

"Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption."* edited to fix this linky (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html)

The same link states that animal protein is only 1.4x more "nutritious" (I'm not sure exactly what they mean) than plan protein... so 41m tons of plant protein would need to result in 29m tons of animal protein just to break even, four times greater than the actual yield.

Interesting..I assume they are corn fed to speed up the fattening process...is this a worldwide practice or simply a US based one? I also assume that if they weren;t eating corn they would have to eat a hell of a lot moree grass thus their impact on the environment would be significantly bigger (or even unsustainable?!)

As for cloned meat..I'm not quite sure what the health risks are so would probably avoid until I understood more.

However in general GM terms I'm much more relaxed, as indicated humans have basically GM'ing livestock and plants for centuries, it was simply done in the field or the farm rather than a lab..the outcome is the same, a distortion of what 'nature' would have came up with. A classic example is the Clydesdale horse...a purely man made creation which involved the importing of Flemish stallions to be cross bread with native Lanarkshire breeds, they were then honed and selectively bred until the Clydesdale we know today was born. Therefore man specifically created a new breed to meet a specific problem...now if that is not GM in the flesh I don't know what is.

And as for milk cows...is it teu that they would actually die within a day or two if not milked? I.e they are an 'impossible' when it comes to nature and are again a very good example of humans GM'ing an animal in the farm.

[Makaveli]

Interesting..I assume they are corn fed to speed up the fattening process...is this a worldwide practice or simply a US based one? I also assume that if they weren;t eating corn they would have to eat a hell of a lot moree grass thus their impact on the environment would be significantly bigger (or even unsustainable?!)

As for cloned meat..I'm not quite sure what the health risks are so would probably avoid until I understood more.

However in general GM terms I'm much more relaxed, as indicated humans have basically GM'ing livestock and plants for centuries, it was simply done in the field or the farm rather than a lab..the outcome is the same, a distortion of what 'nature' would have came up with. A classic example is the Clydesdale horse...a purely man made creation which involved the importing of Flemish stallions to be cross bread with native Lanarkshire breeds, they were then honed and selectively bred until the Clydesdale we know today was born. Therefore man specifically created a new breed to meet a specific problem...now if that is not GM in the flesh I don't know what is.

And as for milk cows...is it teu that they would actually die within a day or two if not milked? I.e they are an 'impossible' when it comes to nature and are again a very good example of humans GM'ing an animal in the farm.

Yes they are indeed corn-fed to speed up the fattening process, and dairy cows are corn-fed to increase their yields. The process is primarily but not exclusively American. AFAIK there is no evidence that a dairy cow would die if not milked daily but they are certainly highly susceptible to infection.

GM is a whole nother issue. I remember eating GM food at the revloving restaurant at Epcot in 1997, they were telling us how amazing it was as we went passed massive tomato plants etc :greengrin I tend to stay away from it now but don't worry too much.

[lyonhibs]

anyone else fancy a steak?

[Twa Cairpets]

If the people producing and eating these animals maintain or even improve their level of health and if the cloning/farming process in itself is sustainable.

So if that happens will you eat it?

[(((Fergus)))]

So if that happens will you eat it?

I think it's already going in the opposite direction so I'll just continue with my own diet experiment.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think it's already going in the opposite direction so I'll just continue with my own diet experiment.

Whats going in the opposite direction? Are you suggesting their is evidence for harm being done to people who eat cloned food or GM modified food?

And whats your own diet experiment?

[HibeeB]

I think it's already going in the opposite direction so I'll just continue with my own diet experiment.


Whats going in the opposite direction? Are you suggesting their is evidence for harm being done to people who eat cloned food or GM modified food?

No.

What he means is that eating cloned meat can have a harmful effect on the cow it came from. I think :bitchy:

[Dinkydoo]

It's a bit sad (I admit it), general ignorance on the subject would be my reason for choosing not to eat cloned meat.

Also quite worryingly, we were never told about cloned meat possibly entering the food chain and that ultimately results in whoever eating it without knowing, was never given a choice. Why shouldn't we be told? What is there to hide?

Surely if there was some additional or increased benefit from eating cloned meat then it would be all over the news............a groundbreaking story............

The lack of communication for all parties involved and my lack of general knowledge on cloning is why if given the option, I'd currently pick the "normal" hefer to go within my two slices of bread. :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

It's a bit sad (I admit it), general ignorance on the subject would be my reason for choosing not to eat cloned meat.

Also quite worryingly, we were never told about cloned meat possibly entering the food chain and that ultimately results in whoever eating it without knowing, was never given a choice. Why shouldn't we be told? What is there to hide?

Surely if there was some additional or increased benefit from eating cloned meat then it would be all over the news............a groundbreaking story............

The lack of communication for all parties involved and my lack of general knowledge on cloning is why if given the option, I'd currently pick the "normal" hefer to go within my two slices of bread. :greengrin

Interesting and honest viewpoint Dinky.

If you expand that thought process on a bit, the information about what is in, for example, a doner kebab is fairly widely available. Huge amount of salt, preservatives, saturated fats and a curious admixture of meats bonded together through some bizarre alchemy to resemble an elephants shin. But its still eaten quite willingly by thousands, if not millions of people in the UK.

My point is that knowing what goes on doesnt necessarily mean that a rational choice is made. Scary-sounding and difficult science, mixed with Hollywood images of cloned armies and a vociferous anti-brigade yelling "Frankenstein Foods!!!" mean that the perception of the risk is almost certainly far, far in excess of the actual risk.

[Dinkydoo]

Interesting and honest viewpoint Dinky.

If you expand that thought process on a bit, the information about what is in, for example, a doner kebab is fairly widely available. Huge amount of salt, preservatives, saturated fats and a curious admixture of meats bonded together through some bizarre alchemy to resemble an elephants shin. But its still eaten quite willingly by thousands, if not millions of people in the UK.

My point is that knowing what goes on doesnt necessarily mean that a rational choice is made. Scary-sounding and difficult science, mixed with Hollywood images of cloned armies and a vociferous anti-brigade yelling "Frankenstein Foods!!!" mean that the perception of the risk is almost certainly far, far in excess of the actual risk.


I don't eat Kebabs either! :faf:

When I was little, my Dad used to tell me that the meat consisted of various fluffy, cuddly creatures such as Red Squirrels and Care Bears…….. now that I’m older I obviously realise that I’m no likely to find a half sliced Care Bear magic heart within the middle of my kebab, although I still wouldn’t eat one.

Apart from the fact that I don’t like the taste, I don’t really feel comfortable eating something that is made up of crap bits from various different animals. However I am partial to the odd Big Mac – Human Nature is very strange isn’t it. :greengrin

What I’m really trying to say is that if I knew the potential risks of munching on a cloned cow I’d be able to make the decision myself whether I felt that the detrimental (or positive) effect it had on my body, was worth the risk.

I’d probably not make the best (or rational) choice time and time again if it tasted good but at least I’d be more comfortable in taking the risk on my own terms.

If that makes any sense at all.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't eat Kebabs either! :faf:

When I was little, my Dad used to tell me that the meat consisted of various fluffy, cuddly creatures such as Red Squirrels and Care Bears…….. now that I’m older I obviously realise that I’m no likely to find a half sliced Care Bear magic heart within the middle of my kebab, although I still wouldn’t eat one.

Apart from the fact that I don’t like the taste, I don’t really feel comfortable eating something that is made up of crap bits from various different animals. However I am partial to the odd Big Mac – Human Nature is very strange isn’t it. :greengrin

What I’m really trying to say is that if I knew the potential risks of munching on a cloned cow I’d be able to make the decision myself whether I felt that the detrimental (or positive) effect it had on my body, was worth the risk.

I’d probably not make the best (or rational) choice time and time again if it tasted good but at least I’d be more comfortable in taking the risk on my own terms.

If that makes any sense at all.

That made me laugh. I'll enjoy my next kebab all the more now

[DCI Gene Hunt]

Don't fancy it myself...

[HibsMax]

Slight diversion...

If like me you love eating those cute *******s, consider switching over to grass-fed beef - this may apply more to US-based Hibees than elsewhere. Cows eat grass, not corn. Cows live in fields, not containment lots. Cows don't need anitbiotics. Cats don't live in wheelie bins. Cows raised on grass rather than corn produce better tasting beef which is actually higher in fat but the fat is the "better" kind. I try to buy grass-fed beef whenever I can.

You may now continue discussing the pros and cons of cloned beef. Me? I don't know if I would eat it or not but I have a hunch based on nothing at all that I would prefer to eat the most natural offering.

[Dashing Bob S]

If Stokes was cloned and the 'real' Stokes was transferred to Celtic, would the cloned Hibs Stokes goals be valid? Would they be credited to Stokes, or Stoke's clone? How would the Sunday Mail differentiate between the two? Would the SFA take a view? There are a lot of issues at stake in cloning.