Bill Would Require Labels on Cloned Food 251
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."
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?
Just who is this "Bill"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If the "corporations" are using inaccurate or misleading labeling or advertising then they're committing fraud, and the courts can handle that under common law without any special regulation. If they omit the labeling entirely, on the other hand, and don't make any other claims regarding what they're selling, then the buyer has no recourse
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only question is how much labeling is enough/too much? How much risk must there be to trigger the warning label?
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Jungle is a novel (and an activist novel at that), not really a reliable source. According to Wikipedia (which of course isn't a reliable source either): "Ironically, the only claim that was unsubstantiated by the report was the claim that workers, whom had fallen into the giant lard vats, were left in these vats and were consequently being made into Durham's Pure Leaf Lard- by far the most influential, revolting, and striking passage in the book."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
P.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they got approval to label it cold pasteurization, which is exactly what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The intent of pasturization is to produce a large-scale reduction in the number of micro-organisms in food. Both heat and ionizing radiation can accomplish that with proven reliabilty.
Good thing it isn't on fruits and vegitables (Score:2, Informative)
Apples? Cloned. Potatos? Cloned. Bannanas? Cloned.
Most commercial strawberries are propagated via runners.
Corn is a freak hybrid. Always has been.
And yet a bunch of kook Californians are trying to use cloning to stoke fear in consumers.
Never say the hard left isn't as anti-scientific as the hard right.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, if all food that was cloned had to be labelled as such, people would very quickly "get over it" and desensitize.
Then, it's game over for the anti-clonistas.
That's natural reproduction for these plants (Score:2)
This form of reproduction is not natural for animals (except maybe geeks). Cloning should be labelled because there are a bunch of unknowns and unnatural processes involved. Apart from potential health issues there are also ethical ones. As a consumer I might choose to not support cloning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=5 [michaelpollan.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It may not involve test tubes, but that doesn't mean it's not cloning. We've been screwing with plant and animal genetics for years through processes like selective breeding. The processes are ju
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that cloning is fundamentally different in vegetables, and therefore it makes perfect sense that the labelling requirements are different. That's a pretty good argument in favour of labelling.
Those of us who support labelling of cloned and GMO foods do so because we have a right to make an informed choice as to what we are buying. Since all bananas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides; they've tried marketing more fruits and vegetables; they generally fail though. Ever hear of the ugly fruit?
they are great (Score:2)
It seems the US is remarkably homogenous in their fruit tastes. I found target had lychees once and the checkout clerk didn't know what to do with them.
The US badly needs more passionfruit. It seems odd that in colorado they are usually about 4 times the price that they are in the UK when you can grow them in florida.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers need information... (Score:2)
As such I think that in this present society, all modified organisms (genetically modified via the addition or removal of genes or whatever) should be clearly labelled. Treatments (such as irradiation) should be clearly labelled and so on.
Sure they can ring the company, but do you really think the company will tell the truth, or if they do say it such a manner that the consume
This is laughable (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If people are so worried about cloned food... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:If people are so worried about cloned food... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
but genetic modification is a-ok!*thumbsup* (Score:2, Insightful)
research has been showing genetically modified foods may be detrimental to your health, and yet no label for them.
i guess government "concern for safety" only applies when the industry to be targetted doesnt have billions in revenues.
Scientific consensus: GM foods are safe (Score:2, Flamebait)
We should listen to a "scientific consensus" when they say climate change will kill us all, but we shouldn't listen to them when they say GM foods are safe?
contradictory report anyone? (Score:2)
I rest my case, they should require labeling.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the whole spinach situation a while back.
Sure, some dangers may be slightly different; but it wouldn't be approved if studies don't point towards it as being as safe as current methods.
Re: (Score:2)
in this recent decade many of the major pharmaceuticals they've "approved" have caused very severe and very publicised side effects (life threatening ones).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The true purity test for you guys is to believe something you know isn't true. Only the real enlightened can do that.
Re: (Score:2)
how am i supposed to trust the perspective of a site like that. If it's meant to be party neutral then why isn't it listing similarly scathing editorials over their right wing and pro-industry counterparts?
that site is nothing more than an astroturfing campaign stemming from the same ilk which sp
Re: (Score:2)
Don't. See above about thinking for yourself. I suggest using Google to find information to draw conclusions, like a thoughtful and intelligent person might do.
Or just continue to repeat buzzwords over and over.
Re: (Score:2)
by the way.. from wikipedia:
in other words, this other page's assertion the UCS is merely a fringe leftie group with no scientists in the ranks is complete drek, and I'd suggest not using that website you linked in in making your decisions, as it's right wing bias is clear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Required? Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
"That there's Bessy. She's the best cow we've ever had. Produces the best milk you've ever tasted, and lots of it too. So we had her cloned. That whole barn there is full of Bessys. Heck, it's better 'n pumpin'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So the dairy cow isn't technically cloned.
Now would the milk be labeled coned?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Already being done with beef cattle.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1898
In this case it's not a gimmick but a way to retain the same high-quality tenderness and flavour genes in his herd.
Wasn't there something like this before? (Score:2, Funny)
I say good. (Score:2)
Really it's not for you (unless you want it) it's for the people who are morally opposed to certain things. You can do it for Kosher food, why not have it for cloned food (and possibly genetically enhanced food). The fact is there's going to be people against cloned food, and those people will choose not to buy cloned food, why not make it easier so they don't have to bitch. Let them go be elitists.
Personally I
Gov. label vs, Kosher (Score:2)
What a government mandated label, inspection, certification and all that goes with it means is that all products have the added expense. You see, whether or not some product is from a cloned animal, it would still need to be certified on
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ahh, the ignorance (Score:3, Interesting)
so what do I do when I see a "cloned" label? (Score:2)
How about we start with Mad Cow labelling? (Score:2)
Frankenfood? No thanks! (Score:2, Troll)
I already have some bad food allergies, I don't need any more. Eating meat used to be a lot safer than eating genetically engineered fruit and vegetables for me, but now with cloned meat I might have allergies to cloned meat, after you genetically engineer food and clone meat, we people with food allergies won't have anything left to eat. What is there to eat that isn't
Not the real issue (Score:3, Interesting)
That the FDA is set to allow sale of cloned meat without special labelling means that they've determined that it's not a distinction pertinent to anyone's health. That makes it the secular equivalent of a religious dietary restriction. The costs associated with making sure that the meat in a package isn't cloned should fall on those who care about it, not those who don't. If enough people do want badly enough to avoid cloned meat, specialty stores and sections within stores will cater to that. But it's not a health concern, so it shouldn't be depicted as such on the label. There are "contains nuts" labels because people can have serious allergic reactions to them. But there aren't big red "Warning! Not Kosher!" and "Not Halal!" labels on ham, nor "Contains Beef!" or "Contains Caffeine!" stickers on sausages and energy drinks despite devout Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Mormons not wanting to consume those things. Orthodox Jews pay a premium for kosher products, since they're the ones to whom it matters. So do people who want organic produce or "fair trade" coffee. And so should people wanting to avoid cloned meat, for the same reason: they're the ones wanting something different from the norm for other than objective health reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why I want GM & Cloned foods to be labeled. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Cloned foods allow them to slaughter a cow, check the quality of the meat and then clone it to make more cows like that one.
That's just the point. Clones created with current technology are not exact copies. They get diseases more easily, have shorter life-spans and suffer from all sorts of weird conditions like organs that grow at freakish speeds which results in hideous deformities. Nobody seems to know why and yet the biotech industry feels quite confident that eating cloned meat will have no detrimental effect on my health what so ever!?! Having watched several scientific documentaries on the subject of cloning I'll live a
Re: (Score:2)
That is a sentiment I just can't get behind. There is nothing more important to me then an optimally tender steak.
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.
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
FUD and Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
The diseases you describe occurring in cloned animals, due to abnormalities in their genomes as a result of cloning, are genetic in nature. The are not communicable any more th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost everything we eat we have a pretty good history regarding it's safety. Cloned animals undergo a significantly altered process than non-cloned animals, this includes dna manipulation, apllying electric shocks to cell, etc. We do not have a clear understanding of why cloning results in so many failures and why they fail in the way they do. This is ample reason to be careful about ingesting that food until
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is similar to some of the genetically modified/genetically engineered foods that are available which could have long term health effects and from what I have heard some have even shown some effects in the short term. The last time I checked the legislation in the US would not req
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.Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will never eat cloned anything if given a choice, which a label would. I would rather not eat genetically modified and growth enhanced food if possible as well, but currently nothing is labelled at all, it amazes me. Coorparations have their hand so far up the governments ass the people can't get shit for protection a
Re: (Score:2)
Cite some sources, please. For such a radical claim, you need to prove your assertions. Simply stating your opinion as fact won't cut it.
If such studies were in fact, introduced as evidence to the FDA or the panels that advise them, I promise you, this wouldn't be on the way to being approved.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, genetically modified food, which may actually present a danger ( I'm not convinced one way or another, to be honest, so I chose to err on the side of caution and buy non-GM anyways ) remains unlabelled, because Monsanto generously donates to the political candidate they want to win ( both of them ) with no expectations of favoritism at all, we promsise
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It uses sucralose, which though its sounds an awful lot like sucrose is a completely different compound.
Yes, that's how chemical reactions work: one compound becomes a different one. Sucralose is made from sucrose, so it's incorrect to say Splenda has nothing to do with sugar (besides the fact that it also contains dextrose, which is an actual sugar).
It puts sucrose into the process and also evaporates sucrose there is no sugar in the start of the process nor the end.
"Evaporates"? I don't think so. The sucrose isn't removed; it's changed into sucralose.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because there aren't any real risks. You eat animal A. Before animal A was killed so that you could devour its flesh, someone took DNA from it and made animal A1. Animal A1 is genetically identical to animal A. You now eat meat from animal A1-20581 with steak sauce.
I mean, I really, honestly don't mean to be condescending, bu
Label should identify the specific clone source (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, of course, we'll discover a way to genetically engineer an animal that wants to be eaten, and can express said desire clearly and eloquently, at which point we can finally put all the "cruelty to animals" arguments behind us for good.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We label shit because people may wish to avoid it, maybe you should check out people's allergy diets and see just difficult it is for people like that. We already have to work out why the hell ham (yes ham, like pig cooked and cut up) contains 12 types of chemicals and still uses milk protien for some unknown reason, so maybe we'd like to know if that ham had cloned meat in it which may cause
Re: (Score:2)
Except, as several people have pointed out, the clones tend to have shorter life spans and weaker immune systems. They might have identical genes, but something else is going on that is not identical. There's apparently more to the genes in a cell than simply the GATC spelling of the DNA.
Until it's worked out, I'd rather have a label telling me that the food may be from a compromised animal.
Re: (Score:2)
Cow meat is different from lamb meat is different from pigs meat, etc.
There is, however, no difference between the meat of one lamb and its clone. At least no more difference than there would be between any two different lambs that happen to be monozygotic.