Slashdot Log In
Bill Would Require Labels on Cloned Food
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Apr 18, 2007 08:20 PM
from the it-tastes-exactly-the-same dept.
from the it-tastes-exactly-the-same dept.
ComeBack writes "Steaks, pork chops, milk and other products from cloned livestock would have to be clearly labeled on grocers' shelves under a bill pending in the California Legislature.
If passed, the requirement could be more stringent than federal rules. The Food and Drug Administration is poised to give final approval to meat and milk from cloned animals without any special labeling, though a bill introduced in Congress would require it."
Related Stories
[+]
FDA Decides Cloned Animals Safe to Eat 323 comments
friedo writes "After five years of research, the Food and Drug Administration has decided that meat and milk from cloned animals is safe to eat. From the article: 'The government believes meat and milk from cattle, swine and goat clones is as safe to eat as the food we eat every day, said Stephen F. Sundlof, director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine. Meat and milk from the offspring of clones is also safe, the agency concluded. Officials said they did not have enough information to decide whether food from sheep clones is safe. If food from clones is indistinguishable, FDA doesn't have the authority to require labels, Sundlof said. Companies trying to distance themselves from cloning must be careful with their wording, he added.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Obligatory Mini-Me Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Foxxy Cleopatra: Ohhh how sweet. No, my mini-man, I'm not.
Mini-Me: Are you sure you don't have a little clone in you?
Foxxy Cleopatra: Yes I'm sure.
Mini-Me: Would you like to?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Somewhat surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Do not get me wrong. I have no qualm about eating irradiated food. But I do believe that I should get to know what I am eating. As it is, it bother me that the markets are required to show that a fish comes from china (as it should), but a dog food with imported products such as Wheat Glutin can be labeled as made in America/Canada.
Re:Somewhat surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
If we left labeling solely up to corporations, all we would get would be informationless, quasi-inaccurate or misleading feel-good marketing BS, or no labeling at all. Marketing is emotional manipulation, not factual communication. Back in the good old days, before the FDA, if a plant worker fell in the meat-processing machinery, a lot of people would wind up eating human flesh from a can of pork. I guess I can't say I would have a problem avoiding a can of meat that contained some amount of human flesh, so long as it was accurately labeled
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the good old days, before the FDA, if a plant worker fell in the meat-processing machinery, a lot of people would wind up eating human flesh from a can of pork.
[citation needed]
(please disregard my sig for the duration of this thread...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Worst of any, however, were the fertilizer men, and those who served in the cooking rooms. These people could not be shown to the visitor,--for the odor of a fertilizer man would scare any ordinary visitor at a hundred yards, and as for the other men, who worked in tank rooms full of steam, and in some of which there were open vats near the level of the floor, their peculiar trouble was that they fell into the vats; and when they were fished out, there was never enough o
other labels (Score:4, Insightful)
I think labels are a good thing; consumers can educate themselves if they want to and they have all the relevant info available.
I think having food labeled whether it's genetically modified is also helpful.
I'm always looking for food that has been obtained using fair trade practices.
I also look for food that has been obtained using sustainable and eco-friendly practices.
My only choices now are to go to the local organic/natural food store and internet stores, not only for food but for environmentally friendly household products (and others).
How far down the chain does the labelling extend? (Score:5, Interesting)
What I want to know though, is what happens to the offspring of cloned animals? Is their meat also labelled? If the offspring were the result of a pairing of two cloned animals, then presumably they also have cloned genes floating through their bodies. If the parents are unhealthy, then presumably the offspring are too.
What about the pairing of a cloned animal with an uncloned one? What do you do about their offspring?
If an animals is just 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/256th cloned, does it still get a warning?
Ahh, the ignorance (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why I want GM & Cloned foods to be labeled. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why I want GM & Cloned foods to be labeled. (Score:4, Informative)
Yup, but the lifespans are irrelevant since we kill off these animals ahead of time anyway. The diseases we check for, so again, it doesn't matter.
I was born in cow country. All the abnormalities and birth defects occur with normally grown animals as well, they occur more frequently with clones. I could hang around a couple farms for no more than 2 years and show you enough animal deformities and abnormalities to make you swear off the regular stuff (not that the farmers would be inclined to let me document that). More frequent abnormalities occur with inbreeding and how much more inbred can you get than a clone?
I'm with those who are selling the meat. Its all the same thing.
Parent
Re:Why I want GM & Cloned foods to be labeled. (Score:4, Informative)
article [mindfully.org]
Scientists found out that Dolly is actually one of the best clones ever made, most of the attemps done on mammals did not give as good results.
When we speak about defects, we mean that none of them is normal, natural born animals have defects usually but in a lesser percentage and do not transmit to the next generation these problems if too important since they just die before to be able to
Parent
Re:The Point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Possible but not probable. There are millions on things you can purchase and consume on the market that haven't undergone extensive testing. There is no reason to single out cloned meat for testing except that the idea freaks you out. That's like saying escargot needs to undergo clinical testing for safety because something as gross as snails could be dangerous. Don't try pulling the natural vs unnatural card either. Something is not more likely to be safe simply because its natural, nature has produced more things that are harmful to man than man has.
This is one of those issues that nobody cares about unless you shove it under their nose. Mandating something like this means more additional expense for the producer than just print on a label. It means they have to have seperate facilities and handle the two seperately. You can no longer send them to a single slaughter house to be butchered and mixed together. Grocery stores would also have to keep and handle the meats seperately. Instead of taking 50 of cut A and grinding it up then splitting it into 1.2lb (they are always intentionally over) packages they will have to handle and process two batches. Thousands of Grocers and processors across the country are suddenly open to liability if they make a mistake in the handling. These expenses will be passed on to EVERYONE whether they care about cloned meat or not.
Like most issues, this is something best left out of the law books. If people are really concerned then they will voice their complaints loudly enough that some vendors will voluntarily tag their meats 'all natural' and pass the premiums on to the consumers who care about the distinction.
I do agree that many will be concerned and that this will occur but I disagree that we should pass laws forcing people to behave the way we'd like each time there is a problem. The best solution in almost every case is to get rid of the existing laws, not to add new ones.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree, mostly (Score:4, Insightful)
If enough* people are concerned about it, then it makes sense to label accordingly. If I weren't a vegetarian, then I'd have no problem paying less for cloned meat, as I think it's highly unlikely that cloning could result in any danger to the consumer. If you feel differently, then you should be allowed to opt out - which is what labeling allows.
* enough should be a pretty low bar as labeling isn't that expensive. Maybe 1% = "enough", but I'm just making up numbers here.Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Point? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. So you can falsely imply risks and sell your competing product as clone-free.
2. So you can hire more government employees to police the label requirement. They (or their union) will contribute to your campaign.
3. For the revenue from the fines on "improperly" labeled food.
4. You run a law firm and can sue companies for "harm" from cloned food. They settle out of court.
5. Who better to head the food labeling bureau than the guy who wrote the bill?
So the short answer is profit.
This is the reason behind most regulation or other government action.
Parent
Re:If people are so worried about cloned food... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:So Sayeth the Great Compromiser (Score:4, Funny)
Untill they figure out that we're not only killing the animals, we're killing them over & over again.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So the dairy cow isn't technically cloned.
Now would the milk be labeled coned?
Re:Good thing it isn't on fruits and vegitables (Score:4, Informative)
No, precisely his point is that most people (including you) are very confused as to what cloning really means. [wikipedia.org] It just turns out that cloning vegetables is so much easier than cloning animals, that we have been doing it for -literally- centuries.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)