Cloned meat "safe to eat" in the UK
- Thread starter ULTRA
- Start date
Why is this an argument against the technology?
Because the GM crop was supposed to be in a restricted zone and unable to cross with wild / indigenous varieties. Continuing to dismiss such incidents as irrelevent is just the sort of attitude the public rail against, and is a significant part of the problem.
This dismissive, devil may care attitude is exactly what the public don't like. Put it in laymans terms and explain it to them, and you might eventually get somewhere. Continue as before, and you can look forwards to more fear, more vandalism, more hostility and it's your fault. (not you personally, but GM manufacturers)
Last edited:
Ultra
The legal action was against a farmer who carefully collected GM seed to plant, while not paying royalties to the company that owned that technology. What he did was, in principle, no different to a small business stealing technology by using someone else's patent without paying royalties.
Now you can argue against the laws involved, but that is a separate issue. The thing is that the farmer was in violation of the law that existed. He got caught and done in court. Not only that, but he tried to get out of it by telling a bunch of lies. Our small farmer was not a nice guy. He was a criminal out to enrich himself by stealing someone else's technology.
He was not even a small farmer, when you get down to it. His farm was a multi-million dollar operation. Do not waste your sympathies on that a$$hole.
Nor did that case impinge on the safety of the technology. In fact, if there was a message coming from it, the criminal small farmer was demonstrating just how desirable those GM crops were. He broke the law to use it.
The legal action was against a farmer who carefully collected GM seed to plant, while not paying royalties to the company that owned that technology. What he did was, in principle, no different to a small business stealing technology by using someone else's patent without paying royalties.
Now you can argue against the laws involved, but that is a separate issue. The thing is that the farmer was in violation of the law that existed. He got caught and done in court. Not only that, but he tried to get out of it by telling a bunch of lies. Our small farmer was not a nice guy. He was a criminal out to enrich himself by stealing someone else's technology.
He was not even a small farmer, when you get down to it. His farm was a multi-million dollar operation. Do not waste your sympathies on that a$$hole.
Nor did that case impinge on the safety of the technology. In fact, if there was a message coming from it, the criminal small farmer was demonstrating just how desirable those GM crops were. He broke the law to use it.
It's not a question of trying to trick the public into buying certain products, but of educating people and allowing them to make their own decisions. We would expect to be told which country our meat comes from, or to know whether or not the animals were free-range. I would say that knowing whether or not the animals were cloned is at least as important.
Because it cannot be controlled.
No, its not as important. It has no physically detectable difference from regular cattle meat, now you might be able to argue that its not free-range, but then again a lot of meat is not free-range, you can put clone meat in that group without mentioning its cloned meat.
Now if you wanted a moral argument such as reduced pain to the animal certainly artificial meat grown in vats would be even better then free-range or at the very least animals grown without functional higher brain functions, they just grow like vegetables on racks, but I would put a good guess because of the fallacious logic of people that they would rather have the "natural" meat that had to die in agony.
We can't control conventional agriculture either by that argument, the killer bee, the cane toad, the purple Lucite, all ecological havoc cause with conventional agriculture. Now if we were to put in standards like lethal operons in GMO such that they could not even live without human supervision we would actually have a better potential safety record then conventional agriculture.
Because the scientists responsible for the cloned meat also have a responsibility to the public. If the scientists involved cannot come up with a convincing arguement to quell the anxieties of the public, then they only have themselves to blame. I'm sick and tired of people blaming the "ignorant" public when the scientific community has singularly failed on all counts to convince the public otherwise. Stop trying to shift the blame, it doesn't wash, period.
Ultra
In this case it is not the fault of scientists (well, maybe just a bit).
It is largely the fault of crackpot organisations that go around rousing fear and paranoia. Greenpeace has much to answer for. So have many others.
I will never forget the example of the Brent Spar. That was the oil rig that had come to the end of its lifespan. Shell Oil wanted to sink it into the ocean to dispose of it. Greenpeace started a campaign to oppose that. Part of their campaign involved the claim that the rig was full of crude oil and toxic chemicals that would pollute the ocean. Turned out that this was an outright lie. Shell invited independent inspectors on board to verify that. Greenpace had simply made up that point.
Then to rub salt in the wound, Greenpeace sank its own derelict - the original sabotaged Rainbow Warrior - into the ocean to make an artificial reef. I have scuba dived on the Rainbow Warrior, and it makes a very beautiful reef, which has enhanced the biodiversity of the region. The Brent Spar would have done exactly the same thing, had it been permitted to be sunk.
I have nothing but contempt for organisations that present crackpot ideas and tell lies to support their dubious campaigns. It is not scientists to blame for the public's misperceptions on GM and on cloned meat. It is the seriously dishonest crackpot organisations.
In this case it is not the fault of scientists (well, maybe just a bit).
It is largely the fault of crackpot organisations that go around rousing fear and paranoia. Greenpeace has much to answer for. So have many others.
I will never forget the example of the Brent Spar. That was the oil rig that had come to the end of its lifespan. Shell Oil wanted to sink it into the ocean to dispose of it. Greenpeace started a campaign to oppose that. Part of their campaign involved the claim that the rig was full of crude oil and toxic chemicals that would pollute the ocean. Turned out that this was an outright lie. Shell invited independent inspectors on board to verify that. Greenpace had simply made up that point.
Then to rub salt in the wound, Greenpeace sank its own derelict - the original sabotaged Rainbow Warrior - into the ocean to make an artificial reef. I have scuba dived on the Rainbow Warrior, and it makes a very beautiful reef, which has enhanced the biodiversity of the region. The Brent Spar would have done exactly the same thing, had it been permitted to be sunk.
I have nothing but contempt for organisations that present crackpot ideas and tell lies to support their dubious campaigns. It is not scientists to blame for the public's misperceptions on GM and on cloned meat. It is the seriously dishonest crackpot organisations.
Hey now, the public is not a crackpot organisation. Has it occured to you that the vast majority of the "public" are well educated, independent people? The sneaky (and illegal) release of the meat, comprising the only large scale "study" of its effects has only served to heighten the publics' sense of self-preservation. As scientists, we should not be surprised at this. It is not for the public to passively accept its' safety, it is for the scientists to prove. The public is only doing what is natural, the scientists involved have to raise thier game if they want thier meat accepted.
Ultra
The public is not a crackpot organisation, but they are very vulnerable to the blandishments of such.
No, the majority are not well educated. Nor does this necessarily mean much anyway. There is always a high percentage of any group vulnerable to non rational argument. The great success of astrologers proves that. A large percentage of the public at any one time are able to be swayed into believing stuff that is pure superstition.
I am not aware of the full circumstances under which cloned meat entered the human food chain. My concern is more to do with its safety, and with opposing superstition and ignorance. It is safe, and the belief that cloning makes it unsafe is based on ignorance.
It would be nice to see the communications of good science better delivered to the public. It is very hard to do, though, when paranoid and unethical organisations deliver messages based on crackpottery and paranoia, opposing good science. Sadly, the media do not care whether what they report is good science, or even accurate, as long as it delivers something dramatic and sell more of their products.
The public is not a crackpot organisation, but they are very vulnerable to the blandishments of such.
No, the majority are not well educated. Nor does this necessarily mean much anyway. There is always a high percentage of any group vulnerable to non rational argument. The great success of astrologers proves that. A large percentage of the public at any one time are able to be swayed into believing stuff that is pure superstition.
I am not aware of the full circumstances under which cloned meat entered the human food chain. My concern is more to do with its safety, and with opposing superstition and ignorance. It is safe, and the belief that cloning makes it unsafe is based on ignorance.
It would be nice to see the communications of good science better delivered to the public. It is very hard to do, though, when paranoid and unethical organisations deliver messages based on crackpottery and paranoia, opposing good science. Sadly, the media do not care whether what they report is good science, or even accurate, as long as it delivers something dramatic and sell more of their products.
There is nothing superstitious about the safety of cloned meat Skeptic. Are the public supposed to believe that those intelligent enough to research and produce cloned meat cannot even keep tabs on the results? Worse, that the results "accidentally" end up on the open market? And you expect the public to just accept it's safe? I'm sorry my friend, but aren't you being just a little bit naieve? It's a sad story. As a population, the public is doing exactly what even rats would do - leave well alone.
I've read somewhere that governments have had advanced cloning technology, much better than the commercial applications they are using now. It said they've been making clones for years now.
Now, from these rumors come wild fantastical reports made of soulless people that become empty programmable units for the establishment, single minded, dangerous, unstoppable.
Regardless, they've grappled with the issue. http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/cloning.html
IMO it is inadvisable to make human clones because of the consciousness aspect, that there IS something there that the scientific method, and/or the instrumentation, measurement paradigm, or descriptive methods have not yet been able to explain. Just because we can't explain why we shouldn't, doesn't mean we should.
I don't think the scientific dictatorship should force all the meat eaters to eat unnatural, dead meat. But I eat only sunshine, so frankly, I couldn't care if my meat was free and natural or spiritually dead and engineered. I'll bet you can guess which I will prefer for my Thanksgiving day bird.
I'll be pretty pissed if I don't have a choice.
Now, from these rumors come wild fantastical reports made of soulless people that become empty programmable units for the establishment, single minded, dangerous, unstoppable.
Regardless, they've grappled with the issue. http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/cloning.htmlIMO it is inadvisable to make human clones because of the consciousness aspect, that there IS something there that the scientific method, and/or the instrumentation, measurement paradigm, or descriptive methods have not yet been able to explain. Just because we can't explain why we shouldn't, doesn't mean we should.
I don't think the scientific dictatorship should force all the meat eaters to eat unnatural, dead meat. But I eat only sunshine, so frankly, I couldn't care if my meat was free and natural or spiritually dead and engineered.
I'll bet you can guess which I will prefer for my Thanksgiving day bird. I'll be pretty pissed if I don't have a choice.
Ultra
The safety of cloned meat is not dependent on how good the makers are at preventing it from entering the human food chain. It is safe to eat, but that is not the point.
The fact that the general public are insufficiently educated to judge this is not a real issue anyway. We all have our areas of knowledge. Ask me about renaissance painters. My answer is duh! If I am so ignorant on that subject, I do not expect the public to be fully informed on areas that I might happen to have a bit more information about.
To me it is kinda ridiculous that any cloned meat, at this point in time, gets released. Making cloned meat is way too expensive for that to be a commercial undertaking. Cloning of animals has other functions.
Actually, to tell the truth, I am not really at all concerned about cloned meat, anyway. It is biochemically no different to 'natural' meat, and so quite safe to eat. But this is hardly an issue at this point in time, anyway, when cloned meat is not going to be made for the table for a long time to come.
I am more concerned about the GM issues. Cloned meat is just a red herring. Good science about GM is more important at this point in time.
To Esotericist
Human cloning is not something we need worry about right now. There is no technology to do it, and no indication that anyone is about to try. Eventually, yes, someone will give it a go. I am personally not in favour right now, since we lack enough expertise. Once the expertise is gained, then human cloning will result in, guess what, human babies. And every baby is precious.
The safety of cloned meat is not dependent on how good the makers are at preventing it from entering the human food chain. It is safe to eat, but that is not the point.
The fact that the general public are insufficiently educated to judge this is not a real issue anyway. We all have our areas of knowledge. Ask me about renaissance painters. My answer is duh! If I am so ignorant on that subject, I do not expect the public to be fully informed on areas that I might happen to have a bit more information about.
To me it is kinda ridiculous that any cloned meat, at this point in time, gets released. Making cloned meat is way too expensive for that to be a commercial undertaking. Cloning of animals has other functions.
Actually, to tell the truth, I am not really at all concerned about cloned meat, anyway. It is biochemically no different to 'natural' meat, and so quite safe to eat. But this is hardly an issue at this point in time, anyway, when cloned meat is not going to be made for the table for a long time to come.
I am more concerned about the GM issues. Cloned meat is just a red herring. Good science about GM is more important at this point in time.
To Esotericist
Human cloning is not something we need worry about right now. There is no technology to do it, and no indication that anyone is about to try. Eventually, yes, someone will give it a go. I am personally not in favour right now, since we lack enough expertise. Once the expertise is gained, then human cloning will result in, guess what, human babies. And every baby is precious.
Gm is not much more of an issue really, because the same communication faults apply. As a scientist, I can say the science is good. But what the hell use is it if nobody wants it because of a damn communication breakdown? Get the basics right first. Why should this not apply?
Edit: It is not the failiure of the public to understand. It is a failiure of science to explain.
Edit: It is not the failiure of the public to understand. It is a failiure of science to explain.
GM is more of an issue because it is more in use. There is very little in the way of animal cloning commercially, and essentially no cloned meat for sale, except a minor accident. GM crops, though, are commercially planted on more than a billion acres. At this point in time, GM is much more important.
Science and communications?
Sure. We definitely need better communications. We need scientists who have PR skills who can explain matters better than has happened to date.
However, let me reiterate. The biggest problem here is not silent scientists, but ultra-vocal crackpot organisations who are eagerly sewing the seeds of dissent. And an unethical media that latches onto bullsh!t because it is dramatic.
Science and communications?
Sure. We definitely need better communications. We need scientists who have PR skills who can explain matters better than has happened to date.
However, let me reiterate. The biggest problem here is not silent scientists, but ultra-vocal crackpot organisations who are eagerly sewing the seeds of dissent. And an unethical media that latches onto bullsh!t because it is dramatic.
No difference that we know of. Or what if someone didn't want to buy cloned meat because cloning animals on a commercial scale would dramatically reduce the gene pool of future generations? Personally I abstain from buying certain products because I disagree with the practices of the companies that make them, even though the product itself is probably of no lower quality than other brands.
Aaah the good old appeal to the unknown fallacy, you know what: you don't know if your typing right now on this new technology called the "personal computer" (nefarious overtones) might through a cascade of unknowable events cause the the downfall and enslavement of the human race to the machines, best to stop typing.
In fact I'm pretty sure cybernetics overlord are more likely to harm us then clone meat, so really your priorities are wack and you should be smashing your computer right now to save us all! aah isn't the appeal to the unknown fallacy beautiful?
That not the case now and I don't think it will be the case in the future, if it will be, then we could consider labeling. But I wonder how many people know that their bananas are clones, I wonder if they would buy bananas if it was rightly labeled "clone"?
What kind of labeling would apply for this?