Cloned meat "safe to eat" in the UK

No such rational reason exists.

Sure there are rational reasons. Genetic diversity. Cloning is a dead end, unless we harvest and store a shitload of cells for potential breeding stock, if there are problems later on down the line with the genetic line we pick.

So I would want to reward farmers who breed animals normally, and maintain genetic diversity with my money.
 
Everything plays it's part in the food chain. To say something is not useful smacks of human arrogance.

Thats primitive thinking. First we kill the cockroaches and what happens nothing. Then we kill the rats and what happens nothing. I know...i know 'john your bad, how can you kill all those disease ridden varmints and not expect the worst possible end of the world' yeah, sure. And dont go reading into this. Rats and roach annihilation is first step in transition of civilization.
 
its high time we start using our damn heads. But nooooooo, were monkeys. content to throw shit at eachother. how stupid of me to forget that.:rolleyes:
 
Thats primitive thinking. First we kill the cockroaches and what happens nothing. Then we kill the rats and what happens nothing. I know...i know 'john your bad, how can you kill all those disease ridden varmints and not expect the worst possible end of the world' yeah, sure. And dont go reading into this. Rats and roach annihilation is first step in transition of civilization.

You miss the point entirely, John, as usual. Don't bother responding until you actually grasp the point, eh?
 
You miss the point entirely, John, as usual. Don't bother responding until you actually grasp the point, eh?

What point were you trying to make?

I said it before, we keep enough to test in labs and thats it. But these things are completely useless and unhealthy bringing misery. Our work should be to eradicate them and use the carcasses for bio fuel. But you are stuck in last century.
 
Last edited:
Sure there are rational reasons. Genetic diversity. Cloning is a dead end, unless we harvest and store a shitload of cells for potential breeding stock, if there are problems later on down the line with the genetic line we pick.

So I would want to reward farmers who breed animals normally, and maintain genetic diversity with my money.

I agree. Although I also think that many people are quite simply uneasy at the idea of its artificiality. That isn't something that can be argued for or against really - it's just a question of the individual's preference.

Yes, the origin of our food should always be clearly labeled.
 
I agree. Although I also think that many people are quite simply uneasy at the idea of its artificiality. That isn't something that can be argued for or against really - it's just a question of the individual's preference.

Sure it can be argued against, for example many want "natural" foods and demand that the world should get "natural" doing so would likely starve to death millions.

Yes, the origin of our food should always be clearly labeled.
]

Labeled how so? Ingredients, vitamin, fatt and carb and protein content? Sure! Or labels with no direct chemical meaning but of philosophical usage so that people can out of their own ignorance and fallacious logic forbid them selves from purchasing a superior and even safer product? Take irradiated foods for example, if it was called and labeled "irradiated" do you think people would buy it, despite the fact that is probably safer to eat irradiated meat for example then non-irradiated meat. Of course they won't buy it, they to stupid to overcome their thoughts to "radiation bad!" over the risks of food poisoning.
 
Phlogistan

Yes, I have read "Sound of Thunder". It is irrelevent to this issue.

However, I think I can see what you are, very clumsily, alluding to. You are talking of the delicate balance of nature? Am I correct?

If so, then you are describing an obsolete concept. The balance is delicate, yes. But it does not crash down in disaster. Upset the balance, and all that happens is that you get a new, and a little different balance. The whole damn world has been changed by humanity. I doubt there is any large ecosystem that has not been profoundly altered by human activity, anywhere. And yet it all continues, and much of it is very healthy.

I agree with the idea of getting rid of cockroaches and rats. Not that we can. That is currently beyond human capabilities, except on a small and local scale. Our species has already wiped out numerous animals that our ancestors must have considered to be nuisance, or hazardous. When did you last see a sabre tooth tiger? And all that these extinctions have done is move the balance point a little.

Certainly I support preserving biodiversity as much as possible. However, I think we need to be careful not to exaggerate the harm of reducing it.

To EF

Nice to see someone talking sense. Thank you.
 
To say that millions would starve without GM crops is a complete fallacy. There is already more than enough food produced to feed everybody. It's not about crops, it's about power. Natural crops support natural populations, artificial crops will support artificially high populations that would suffer even more gravely when those crops fail. I fail to see how that is an advance.
 
Ultra

You would be correct to say that we could feed everyone without GM crops. However, the essential point is that we are failing to do so.

Tell me. Will the developed nations of the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars to send surplus food to the starving millions? They could, you know. But they never have.

As far as I can make out, the only way to feed all those malnourished people adequately is to give them the tools to feed themselves. GM crops are one of the tools to do this. Sure, not the only one, but still an important one.

For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, 200 million people use maize as their staple food. 40% of the crop is destroyed each year by insect attack. Potentially, that could be stopped totally by offering Africans the seeds of GM maize that contains the Bt gene. That would make the maize inherently insect resistant. And millions upon millions of Africans would be able to eat.

In the same way, many more millions starve because their staple is cassava, which is vulnerable to several virus diseases. GM cassava potentially would stop that virus dead in its tracks, just as a GM papaya stopped a similar disease in Hawaii.

GM is only one tool, but we need every tool in the toolbox to stop world hunger.
 
Ultra

You would be correct to say that we could feed everyone without GM crops. However, the essential point is that we are failing to do so.

Yes, and large corporations taking legal action against small farmers for using their intellectual property, when their GM food cross pollenates with the farmers own crop isn't going to help get anybody fed.
 
I'm not saying GM intervention is wrong per se, but it has to be researched and applied responsibly and this is simply not the case. Again, the most power is held by those that hold the patent, and in the rush, corners get cut. This is damaging to the scientific community at large, and leads to outright opposition. If we are going to do this, and we will, let's at least do it properly.
 
Ultra

There have been cases where farmers have used GM seeds without paying royalties, and claimed the pollination was accidental. After expert testimony those farmers lost their cases, with the courts finding they had lied, and such accidental pollination simply did not happen. I recall that the percentage of plants that were GM in those cases were over 95% - simply and technically impossible to happen by accident.

Now you can argue about the rights and wrongs of companies holding rights to royalties, but that is separate from the legal case. Simply, the farmers claims were lies.

However, there are GM seeds produced by charitable organisations (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example), which intend to distribute seeds for free, with no royalties to pay. Once the prejudice of the ignorant is overcome, insect resistant maize for Africa, along with virus resistant cassava, and vitamin A enriched rice, will be widespread.
 
The problem is, at least in Britain thet there were cases of contamination of wild varieties, there was damage to the insect population and there was an illegal release of cloned meat onto the consumer market. Now, whenever GM crops are planted, protesters go out there and grub them all up again. Safe or not, this is the reality we are left with. I don't think the scientific community has done a very good job communicating with the public.
I eat cheese made with GM rennet, with no problem. It's not properly labelled though. In fact, some manufacturers using natural rennet use this as a marketing ploy.
I think that in the eyes of the public, GM foods are still seen to be somehow 'contaminated'. And it's no use blaming the public for thier ignorance when it is the scientists fault for being poor communicators. They may be sure it is safe, but unless they can persuade the public the same, then they are always going to be on the back foot.
 
Ultra

I agree on the communication thing. Scientists have failed to communicate what is real and what is not. I have personally done a lot of literature research on the application of GM crops and food. After 15 to 20 years, there is still no measurable ecological, or nutritional harm from them. The safety record exceeds that of almost any agricultural innovation this last century.

The problem is that there are people with agendas. I suspect the real reason behind the hostility to GM by the relevent organisations (like Greenpeace) is that they went off half cocked in the early days, and cannot bring themselves to admit they were wrong.

The internet is full of web sites spreading misinformation about GM. The answer is to access only reputable websites, such as government departments, research institutes, and university researchers. This cuts out the bull sh!t.
 
The answer is to access only reputable websites, such as government departments,

How dumb are you?

When 'Mad Cow Disease' hit the headlines in the UK, the British Government declared that British Beef was safe to eat,... but at that point the pathogen was not known, so they could not honestly make that statement.

Governments tell lies to keep populations pacified.
 
How dumb are you?

When 'Mad Cow Disease' hit the headlines in the UK, the British Government declared that British Beef was safe to eat,... but at that point the pathogen was not known, so they could not honestly make that statement.

Governments tell lies to keep populations pacified.

This is quite true, the MP John Gummer famously forced his daughter to eat a burger on tv, declaring it safe. He couldn't have been more wrong, and the public have been regularly lied to over the years. Of course now they won't believe a word. You can't blame the public for being sceptical, the government is a proven liar. What it needs is a fully independent public enquiry into GM foods and complete transparancy rather than just repeating 'its safe' over and over. Saying it doesn't make it so.
We don't need GM crops in the UK, so why try to grow them here? The whole issue has been handled exceedingly poorly, and it's going to take years to put things right. As it stands, there is no attempt to asuage the fears of the public by the government or the scientific community. This is a mistake I think.
 
Let me make the point clearer. When I suggest government departments, I do not mean politicians, who we know will lie any time it means a personal advantage.

I am talking of government scientists. Professionals. There are a bunch of web sites which publish the findings of these scientists. They are reliable. Not always right, since any human can be mistaken, but their publications are honest, and professional, and based on good research findings. Government scientists would not publish the sort of garbage that an MP will.

However, the thing to avoid is all the dubious web sites run by crackpot organisations. They are there in their thousands.

Here in New Zealand some years ago, the Green political party pressured the government to set up a Royal Commission into genetic modification. The commissioners listened to literally thousands of submissions, including the biggest pile of intellectual garbage ever collected. They had the brief to sort out good scientific data, rather than mere opinion. After the process was complete, they published a report that said there was no clear evidence that GM was going to cause any great harm, and recommended that the country 'proceed with caution' down the GM road.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/organisms/royal-commission-gm/

I agree with their conclusion. The 'caution' part is pretty much universal for all new technologies. However, we have had 15 to 20 years of GM as part of our lives, and no measurable harm to anyone. I think it is time for the paranoia to be dispensed with, and the science to take over.
 
Back
Top