Cloned meat "safe to eat" in the UK

Unless you're joking, you have missed the point by a mile there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some posters here seem to have zilch knowledge of the cloning process.

Except for some test tube procedures to create a fertilized egg, a cloned animal leads a very normal life.

It is carried in the uterus for the normal amount of time. When born, it grows to adulthood in the normal amount of time.

A clone is an identical twin born years after the sibling from which genetic material was taken. It is not even close to the typcial SciFi scenario in which the clone & the genetic donor are the same age like identical twins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well

Eat all bananas you can now, because the blight is already going in the whole world but in America continent.
here is a very interesting article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2664373.stm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

friends today's clones are a fact of life, one third of our heard are clones, the more the population grows or get specific tastes for feeding themselves, the more clones are going to control the meat market, because farmers have to produce and to make sure their animals are going to produce. The aging clone, was an experiment, but I am sure they are trying to create a cow with a fast aging factor so we can eat a cow in three months or saw, that happened to the chicken industry a regular chicken takes up to 6 months to produce meat or eggs todays altered chicken produce meat in three months, I don't know eggs. Who to blame, us. The regular American family eat meat three to four or more times a week, so that meat have to come from somewhere...

 

How about reducing meat consumption? From what I've seen, a meatless diet would not harm the US American population that is growing fatter with each day.

 

That is pure NONSENSE!!! :bugeye: Today's cattle herds are the products of artificial insemination, not cloning, joker! And the chickens are NOT clones either - they are simply the products of selective cross-breeding - the same as cattle.

You really REALLY should do some simple research before making bald-face erroneous statements like these! Sheesh!!!:bugeye:

 

I am talking aboutr 1/3 of the herds are cloned, chicken yes are buy selective breading and some gene manipulation. Yes we should reduce the average of meat consumption, but the "fast food" industry is selling themselves very well and is cheaper to eat in Mc. than to buy food and cook it at home, Vegan are not a good percent of the population and to prepare a a vegan meal is not fast and now everybody is working at home, no more Housewife, we are not only getting fat but getting tall and big also. some of the old building have to alter their structure their doors and hallways are not big enough for our regular guy. The high schoolers in my town are intimidating, some of them are 14 and or 15 years old and they are already 6 foot tall and more than 200pounds. These big guys are growing up, you can not feed them an apple or potatoes, you have to give them significant food, meat, chicken and fish and several times a day and several times a week usually is every day, yes American are getting fatter but the young American are getting bigger too. And I read in China is the same thing and Spain is having problems keeping the weight down in young children. We are altering our food and at the same time altering ourselves

 

I never said the today herd is 100% cloned because is not, is only about one third of it, You are assuming too much when you read my posted statements and I am guilty of posting without explaining in detail, like is common knowledge cows are improved buy selective breeding by insemination, the same with turkeys sheep and pigs, but the clones are coming and the percentage is about 1 to 3 percent of the animals at the farm today are cloned...

 

No, it's not. Four people can eat quite well for about half what you'd pay at McDonald's - even on a calorie by calorie basis. Pasta, local vegetables, flour, rice etc is very cheap. McDonald's wins on time, not cost.

They can grow as well on a vegetarian diet as on a meat diet. They just don't want to.

 

i don't believe this. please provide a reference.

 

One third is 33%. That's not the same as 1 to 3%. Do you have any sources for that info?

 

Vegan Diet

You are right they both can grow in a vegan diet and or in protein diet, but not as well
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/nutrition/a/06_protein_food
http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/nutrition/vegetarian_diets.html

But vegan diet have more problems if you ask me...

 

Diversity

Diversity is very important in all living things, Your banana example is typical example of diversity needs, and also about mutation is always negative against the organism suffering from it. AT one time Evolutionists were using Mutations as the evolutionary vehicle to make species to change from one specie to another but they abandoned the idea, Mutations usually works against the organism suffering it.
I am not pro evolution neither pro creationism. I think both "religions" needs a sustained and significant amount of Faith to convince people.

 

Greenboy, you are nothing but a pure nut!! First off, you claim to be a college student, yet your writing skills aren't even on par that that of a high school freshman. You also claim to be working in a lab - yet your comprehension of numbers is worse than a kid of ten! 1 to 3 percent is a LONG WAY from 1/3. Man!! Whoever paid for your education sure got ripped off !!!:bugeye:

I noticed that others have asked for proof of your ignorant statements - such as the garbage about chickens being bred by artificial insemination (which they are NOT!!!) - and I see that you've made no attempt to reply to those requests. That's because you can't. Typical undereducated little kid just running off the the mouth with NO idea of what he's talking about.

 

Agreed.

Also agreed.

Whale's flukes are mutations. All the food we eat today are mutations. Beer, wine and bread? From mutated yeast.Our feet, teeth, skin, hair - mutations. I'd say some of them were quite beneficial.

Usually - but not always. Which is the important part.

 

Evolutionary biologists have most certainly not abandoned the idea that mutation leads to variation in a species. Mutation is not always negative. Most of the time they are neutral or harmful, but when they are beneficial, they tend to be preserved. Ignorance of facts is no excuse to dismiss the existence of those facts.

 

Spider, that little kid is so full of ignorance that's it's pitiful. Not only are mutations not always harmful, it's the ONLY means of creating variations in a species!!! What is someone supposed to assume this kid thinks ? That an organism makes a conscious decision to alter it's physiological makeup? Sheesh!!!:bugeye:

 

Usually a detrimental mutation will increase the organisms' susceptability to disease or predation, meaning the mutation will not usually survive into successive generations. An interesting exception is sickle-cell anaemia. At face value, this debilitating disease would not be expected to be passed on due to the high mortality of the affected population. On closer examination however, it turns out there is a biological reason for this. Sufferers of sickle-cell have a greater resistance to malaria, and in malaria infested countries this gives them a significantly improved survival rate. So the gene gets passed on.

The world doesn't need genetically modified foods. What it needs is to distribute the food that it already produces. At present, there is a net surplus. But then it has never been about food, it's about power. However, with the world population due to top 9bn by 2050, it may actually become a food production issue. For GM to be successfully adopted, the scientific community has to get its finger out and explian to the general public how it all works. Science is already viewed with suspicion by a huge swathe of society, and being secretive and evasive will do nothing to remedy this.
The drama over the global warming data from the university of East Anglia being "manipulated" has only reinforced and hardened the opinions of the anti-faction and just makes our job harder to reconsile with the public. Science has rarely been so widely distrusted as it is now. Scientists have a lot of work to do if they want to start rebuilding the trust of the public.

 

The above is fairly naive. Food shortages will never be solved by redistribution, no matter how much surplus there is. Food is produced by farmers, who want paying. It is processed in factories, which want to be paid. It is distributed by trucks, ships etc - all of whom want to be paid. Who the hell is going to pay for all this? The poor nations cannot.

The solution to food shortages is to help those who are hungry to produce their own food. Africa, for example, can produce many times the food that it is currently doing. The main reason for shortages is lousy and corrupt government. Zimbabwe under Mugabe is an excellent example. Their nation once exported food, and now under crap government, cannot even feed its own people.

GM is one of many tools to help poor nations produce their own food.

The problem is not that scientists fail to explain it. The problem is the total a$$hole nutcases like Greenpeace who are energetically trying to sabotage the whole effort. New products like drought resistant corn cannot get accepted by the legal powers that be, because Greenpeace et al are doing their damnedest to stop it passing the now excessive red tape.

 

Well, that's not true by definition. If there is a surplus, shortages can be solved by redistribution. We may not like how that redistribution works, but that's a secondary issue.

>Food is produced by farmers, who want paying. It is processed in
>factories, which want to be paid. It is distributed by trucks, ships etc - all
>of whom want to be paid. Who the hell is going to pay for all this? The
>poor nations cannot.

Ay, there's the rub.

To be fair, there are just as many Greenpeacers who want to ban everything, no matter what the consequences, as there are GM advocates who want to approve everything, no matter what the consequences. GM crops have risks that have to be evaluated. That red tape has already saved lives when it comes to GMO's, and getting rid of it would be a big mistake. Indeed, given the minimal amount of testing we do on GMO's right now, we need more red tape, not less.