Cloned beef

[grungy-gonads 54]

Or lamb or indeed any other meat.

 

FSA not going to easily let up and let us tuck into the cloned niku. Is it actually different? Would you eat it?

 

[thursday 1]

No freakin way, I am not touching cloned stuff knowingly.

 

GM is another thing. And I would not knowingly touch that either.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

I don't really know enough to make an informed decision I don't think. So while I am unsure I will err on the side of caution and say, no thanks.

[big-will 7]

Apparently, it would make no difference.

Need to study.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

I think a bit too much is made of GM stuff. People have been manipulating the genes of plants and animals for hundreds perhaps thousands of years. By cross pollinating one plant with another to get certain desirable traits, by breeding one animal with another (of the same species of course) to get certain desirable traits.....now the process has just become more refined, exact and scientific. Perhaps thats why people get freaked, they feel that "more scientific" means more artificial and less natural. For me, I'm more concerned that we are still grinding up dead animals and feeding them to other animals which we then subsequently slaughter and eat, refusing to heed the lessons of BSE etc.

[RobBright 35]

There is a huge difference between cross-pollination, and messing around GM style.

 

Nature itself cross-pollinates but when it comes to GM messing, a la evolution style, if nature doesn't like it, then it is kicked out of the system. Unlike GM style where humans often force into the eco-system, without really thinking about the consequences.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

I'd be wanting to make sure whatever was being done wasn't going to go all 'I am Legend' on us.

 

However cloning as far as I am aware is simply initiating the fertilization/development of an embryo without sexual reproduction - the genetic material is the same as the 'mother' (a natural expression of those genes). So in theory it should be alright...

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Originally Posted By: RobBright

There is a huge difference between cross-pollination, and messing around GM style.

Nature itself cross-pollinates but when it comes to GM messing, a la evolution style, if nature doesn't like it, then it is kicked out of the system. Unlike GM style where humans often force into the eco-system, without really thinking about the consequences.

but thats what I'm saying. People have been manipulating the genetic codes of plants and animlas for years, just now the techniques have become more exact. Cutting and binding saplings of one plant to another, selective breeding of one animal to another.....all of them are engineered by people to get the desired phenotype or characteristic. Whether that be more resistant to certain disease, plumper fruit, able to survive in harsher climates or to yield fattier meat. The fact that GM food has more of a human hand in it is what freaks people out the most IMO.

[RobBright 35]

Not quite - when we cross-pollinate, we know what we want to achieve using natural methods, if nature doesn't like it, then nature stops it from producing.

 

Now, when we go down to the genome/dna level, and start altering things and forcibly put them back into nature, things can go wrong. There have been numerous studies where GM food have caused an unnatural effect on creatures or other food stuff. Moreover, the effects they may have on viruses is never fully studied until out in the wild.

 

I see what you are saying, but comparing cross-pollination to genetically modifying things at the DNA level in a lab are very different.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Originally Posted By: RobBright

Not quite - when we cross-pollinate, we know what we want to achieve using natural methods, if nature doesn't like it, then nature stops it from producing.

Now, when we go down to the genome/dna level, and start altering things and forcibly put them back into nature, things can go wrong. There have been numerous studies where GM food have caused an unnatural effect on creatures or other food stuff. Moreover, the effects they may have on viruses is never fully studied until out in the wild.

I see what you are saying, but comparing cross-pollination to genetically modifying things at the DNA level in a lab are very different.

I'm not making a direct comparison to cross-pollination, I just used that as an example of how people have been altering plant DNA to gain the results that they want.

I do however agree that without proper testing and control, GM can have a unexpected effect upon the biosystem

[NoFakie 45]

Originally Posted By: Tubby Beaver

The fact that GM food has more of a human hand in it is what freaks people out the most IMO.

Well, you just have to look at what GM research is trying to produce. The most publicized examples are

"Terminator" crops that don't produce viable seed.
Crops that can resist being sprayed with strong herbicides.
Crops that can be patented, allowing anyone downwind or along the delivery road to be sued.

I think these justifiably freak people out. They are way beyond what traditional plant breeding has tried to achieve. If people associated GM just with rust-resitant roses, perennial cabbages, or some other bigger, harder, faster, stronger type goal, I guess there would be far less opposition.

Its cloning as opposed to GM, but the original Bramley apple tree has been saved by cloning since what are sold as Bramleys are actually mutations over the generations. The original tree is supposed to be superior to most of them. I doubt anyone would be that fussed about scientific methods in that example, because it doesn't have the rampant profit motive uber alles intent of the examples given above.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Quote:

Terminator" crops that don't produce viable seed.
Crops that can resist being sprayed with strong herbicides.
Crops that can be patented, allowing anyone downwind or along the delivery road to be sued.

I don't think that you'll find any consumer willing to go for GM because of these resons though.

[2pints-mate 0]

Artificial meat grown in vats may be needed if the 9 billion people expected to be alive in 2050 are to be adequately fed without destroying the earth, some of the world's leading scientists report today.

 

But a major academic assessment of future global food supplies, led by John Beddington, the UK government chief scientist, suggests that even with new technologies such as genetic modification and nanotechnology, hundreds of millions of people may still go hungry owing to a combination of climate change, water shortages and increasing food consumption.

 

In a set of 21 papers published by the Royal Society, the scientists from many disciplines and countries say that little more land is available for food production, but add that the challenge of increasing global food supplies by as much as 70% in the next 40 years is not insurmountable.

 

Although more than one in seven people do not have enough protein and energy in their diet today, many of the papers are optimistic.

[Mintyjulep 0]

GM - doesn't worry me when it is just scientists involved. It is the corporate suits who get their hands on GM technology and say to the scientists "can you do this?" to which the scientist excitedly and naively says "yes!"

 

But even companies like Monsanto didn't have any real power until patent law reforms took place allowing Monsanto to patent living things. (This was HUGE! You could play around with any plant/animal you wanted, but you could not own it's DNA (and thus it's offspring, or future generations), which is how things should be!)

 

Hence the suing of farmers when Monsanto seed was found on their farms, hence roundup ready crops which are resistant to roundup and are infertile, so do not reproduce. Hence the development of superweeds which are immune to round up through "natural selection" by farmers who overuse roundup because Monsanto told them to. all of these things make money for monsanto's suits.

 

Globalisation and big business are bad for us, but while they make money why should they care about the planet?

 

Personally - I would HAPPILY eat cloned meat, however meat which is grown in a vat - although possible, I think it is sick (it is NOT cloned meat, it is basically stem cell meat). Cloned meat is vastly different - species have been saved from extinction by cloning (well, not quite saved, but perpetuated) including a domestic cow and her calf that I saw at field days when I was about 10 years old. She was the last left of this particular breed and so scientists tried out cloning on her by taking an egg from another cow and putting this cows DNA into it. It was able to replicate and produce a little clone cow - how could you have a problem with eating that?

 

I'm still waiting for the focus to turn from money to perpetuation of humanity.

 

oh and lastly - every single producing grape vine in the world is a clone. clones by cuttings.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Originally Posted By: MintyNZ

including a domestic cow and her calf that I saw at field days when I was about 10 years old. She was the last left of this particular breed and so scientists tried out cloning on her by taking an egg from another cow and putting this cows DNA into it. It was able to replicate and produce a little clone cow - how could you have a problem with eating that?

you saw a cloned cow when you were 10? How old are you?
I thought Dolly the Sheep was the first cloned animal in 2003

[scouser 4]

Originally Posted By: Tubby Beaver

Originally Posted By: MintyNZ

including a domestic cow and her calf that I saw at field days when I was about 10 years old. She was the last left of this particular breed and so scientists tried out cloning on her by taking an egg from another cow and putting this cows DNA into it. It was able to replicate and produce a little clone cow - how could you have a problem with eating that?

you saw a cloned cow when you were 10? How old are you?
I thought Dolly the Sheep was the first cloned animal in 2003

-3.

[thursday 1]

No, she meant "boned"

 

It had a boner.

[Mintyjulep 0]

lol, it was at mystery creek field days innnnnn, oh i was at Te Huruhi still so I would have been younger than 10. maybe only 9? (I am 23 now)

 

Let me google to clarify.

 

well this was the first bit of info I found

 

In 1998 the first cloned calf was created in Japan

 

In 98 I was 12, so I'm a bit confused now as to why the calf was labelled as being cloned.

 

more info

In 1997, a sheep named Dolly was successfully cloned from an adult cell, which put clone technology into the global spotlight. After that, Japanese and New Zealand scientists separately used ovary and oviduct cells in clone research, with their achievements adding several successful models to the global cloning technical research field. However, the goal of cloning cells of non-reproductive organs was still a dream.

 

edit: this seems to be the cow - lady, but apparently her first cloned calf was born in 1998

 

lady & her clone

 

Maybe I was 12?

[thursday 1]

in 98, I was 80 years old

[Mintyjulep 0]

rightyo

[RobBright 35]

yep.