Things to come

[cptstickfigure]

The FDA has announced that meat and milk from cloned animals is safe to eat.
What I want to know is how this issue even came up.
I know I tend to be very conservative in my thinking,
but I've always understood farmers, even the new breed, to be incredibly risk-averse.
Under what circumstances is cloning more viable than traditional breeding?

Comments

[akibare]

What I understand, from some argument about it on the BBC in the wee hours of the ay-em, is that what they want to clone is the stud animals. So, the idea is, some studs win (at fairs, whatever), then get bought for huge prices, and cloned.

Then other farmers (well, really large rich agribusiness firms, it sounded like) would buy the cloned "seed animals" for around 15K+ a pop (i.e. your average small time farmers Need Not Apply), and use those to breed (normally) the animals for eating.

BBC wasn't all that enthusiastic about this plan and kept asking "what about labelling?" but the chick from the FDA was really getting irate, saying people should only need labels if it's a LEGITIMATE thing to be concerned about, a real difference, not just labels for the sake of labels.

No word on her feelings on such things as Jordache jeans or Louis Vuitton bags.

[cgthree]

Then other farmers (well, really large rich agribusiness firms, it sounded like) would buy the cloned "seed animals" for around 15K+ a pop (i.e. your average small time farmers Need Not Apply), and use those to breed (normally) the animals for eating.

i don't know how it is in the UK, but it seems that here in the US, as far as the Food Industry is concerned, there are no such things as 'small-time farmers.' they are, more or less, inconsequential, and will be sued out of business as soon as it can be determined that any proprietary genetic material has accidentally made its way into their product.

BBC wasn't all that enthusiastic about this plan and kept asking "what about labelling?" but the chick from the FDA was really getting irate, saying people should only need labels if it's a LEGITIMATE thing to be concerned about, a real difference, not just labels for the sake of labels.again, in the US, the FDA is not really big on actually fulfilling its stated purpose--truth in labeling. Monsanto has engaged in quite a bit of

[cptstickfigure]

What I understand, from some argument about it on the BBC in the wee hours of the ay-em, is that what they want to clone is the stud animals.

Ah yes! That makes a lot more sense. I was reading my morning news and could not figure out why you would clone an animal for slaughter. Or even how it could be a viable business model.

[cgthree]

under the circumstances where there's absolutely no risk whatsoever. compare this to GM foods; the idea is that, if you can increase your yield by even a few percent margin, that gives you a significant edge.

if farmers are so risk-averse, why this:

http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/display.php3?FactsheetID=2

The number of farmers planting GM crops has also increased over the past three years. In 2000, 3.5 million farmers planted GM crops. That number has nearly doubled, to an estimated total of seven million farmers planting GM crops in 2003. More than 85 percent of the farmers who planted GM crops in 2003 were resource-poor, including Chinese and South African Bt cotton growers.

because it's being posed as a matter of sink-or-swim. convert, or you won't produce enough to compete with your neighbors. also, i would guess that in a lot of cases, the risks tend to be covered up, and public understanding lags reality

[spacethyme]

I can see concern about the safety of genetically engineered animals and plants (and I find Monsanto's stance on its proprietary interests as far over the top as just about anything else they do; asking that beekeeping be banned because "those indiscriminate bees won't stay away from our exclusive pollen" is only the latest).

I can't see what (apart from the cost) the alarm is about cloned animals, who should be demonstrably genetically identical to their parent.

When it comes to people's response to cloning, though, I keep remembering a discussion we had in a science fiction class years ago after we'd read an Ursula LeGuin story about clones ("Cloned Lives"? don't remember the title for sure) and I'd asked, "What would your reaction be if you found out your roommate was a clone?" I was astonished when one guy blurted out, "I wouldn't hesitate to kill him!" What got to me as much as the statement itself, though, was that the guy was a senior in Social Work. Ah, the (genetically un-engineered) milk of human kindness.

[cgthree]

asking that beekeeping be banned because "those indiscriminate bees won't stay away from our exclusive pollen" is only the latest

i hadn't heard that one. they do realize they'll also have to ban wind, right?

I can't see what (apart from the cost) the alarm is about cloned animals, who should be demonstrably genetically identical to their parent.

i don't know how reliable the source, but it has references; decide for yourself.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml

Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring

[cgthree]

asking that beekeeping be banned because "those indiscriminate bees won't stay away from our exclusive pollen" is only the latest

do you have a reference for that? i've been looking, but can't find one.

maybe they have to make a public statement to this effect, to remain credible in the eyes of the law, but actually, it sounds counter-intuitive to Monsanto's MO. wouldn't they want the bees to inadvertently cross-polinate crops, so they could use their extortion techniques on more farmers?

[spacethyme]

I saw it in the Eau Claire (WI) LEADER-TELEGRAM a month or so ago, a story from somewhere in California, I think, so not a blanket protest (yet) apparently. Trial balloon? They've already complained about the effect of wind and have gone to court to require some farmers to plow up cross-pollinated crops, also according to newspaper reports, but those were at least last year. Sounds like a losing battle to me.

Re cloning: "in other words, not 100% identical." Ay, there's the rub. That's why I said "demonstrably" or whatever qualifier I used back there.